Vang v. City of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 28, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00374
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KHOUA VANG, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00374-JAM-JDP 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND 12 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 In the early morning hours of September 6, 2018, members of 16 the Sacramento Police Department shot and killed eighteen-year- 17 old Darell Richards. The instant lawsuit was filed by Richards’ 18 parents, Khoua Vang and Ted Richards Jr. (“Plaintiffs”), six 19 months after their son’s death. Plaintiffs filed suit against 20 the City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department Sergeant 21 Todd Edgerton and Officer Patrick Cox, and several other unnamed 22 Sacramento Police Department officers (“Defendants”), alleging a 23 host of civil rights violations. See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), 24 ECF No. 12. Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend their FAC to 25 update the facts of the case, add Sacramento Police Department 26 Chief Daniel Hahn and Lieutenant Sameer Sood as named defendants, 27 include the City of Sacramento as a defendant in pre-existing 28 causes of action, and add a cause of action for supervisory 1 liability. See Mot. to Amend FAC (“Mot.”), ECF No. 30. 2 Plaintiffs also request that the scheduling be reset to allow for 3 additional fact discovery. Id. Defendants oppose both requests 4 (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 32. 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 6 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.1 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 On September 5, 2018, at approximately 11:30 PM, the 9 Sacramento Police Department was informed that Richards was 10 walking down the 1500 block of Broadway, in Sacramento. FAC 11 ¶ 20. Police were told that Richards was “acting bizarrely, 12 wearing a hospital mask, and carrying what appeared to be a 13 handgun.” Id. Richards ran from police officers when they 14 located him near 20th Street and Broadway. Id. The Sacramento 15 Police Department S.W.A.T. team was deployed to the area to set 16 up a perimeter and conduct a search. FAC ¶ 21. Sergeant 17 Edgerton and Officer Cox were among the S.W.A.T. team members 18 sent to the scene to search for Richards. Id. 19 Prior to locating Richards, officers found his backpack 20 which contained identifying information and a possible suicide 21 note. FAC ¶ 22. Before the night in question, Richards was 22 showing signs of mental illness and was scheduled to obtain a 23 mental health evaluation. FAC ¶ 20. Officers did not contact 24 Richards’ family upon finding his backpack. FAC ¶ 22. Nor did 25 they contact any crisis negotiators, mental health experts, or 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for June 8, 2021. 1 the Sacramento Police Department Hostage Negotiation Team. FAC 2 ¶ 23. Instead, officers told residents in the area to stay in 3 their homes and, at approximately 3:15 AM, a K-9 unit was 4 deployed. FAC ¶¶ 24–26. 5 The K-9 officer located Richards under a backyard deck but 6 did not try to interact with him. FAC ¶¶ 26–27. Instead, the K- 7 9 officer returned to the other officers and, shortly thereafter, 8 three to four S.W.A.T. team members, including Sergeant Edgerton 9 and Officer Cox, entered the backyard. FAC ¶ 28. As the 10 S.W.A.T. team approached the deck, an officer shouted “hands, 11 hands, hands” at Richards. Id. Sergeant Edgerton and Officer 12 Cox immediately opened fire, shooting Richards multiple times. 13 Id. Richards died of his injuries. Id. 14 On March 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants. 15 See Compl., ECF No. 1. On May 30, 2019, the Court entered its 16 initial Scheduling Order. See Sched. Order, ECF No. 14. On 17 January 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their FAC. See FAC. On May 18 1, 2020, citing COVID-19-related interruptions and delays, the 19 parties stipulated to amend the Scheduling Order to extend the 20 discovery deadline. See Stip., ECF No. 14. The Amended 21 Scheduling Order extended the discovery deadline to February 12, 22 2021. See Min., ECF No. 15. In January of 2021, Plaintiffs 23 deposed several defendants and witness officers. Mot. at 2; 24 Opp’n at 2. 25 Plaintiffs contend that these depositions revealed 26 previously undisclosed information. Id. As such, the parties 27 stipulated to another extension of the fact discovery deadline—to 28 April 16, 2021. See Stip., ECF No. 25. The pretrial schedule 1 was amended accordingly. See Min., ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs took 2 additional depositions in March of 2021. Mot. at 2; Opp’n at 2. 3 Plaintiffs contend that Chief Hahn and Lieutenant Sood’s 4 depositions revealed additional previously unknown information 5 which necessitates another extension of the discovery deadline 6 and the filing of a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See 7 generally Mot. 8 II. OPINION 9 A. Legal Standard 10 After the Court has filed a pretrial scheduling order, a 11 party’s motion to amend must satisfy Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” 12 requirement. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 13 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). This requirement primarily looks 14 to “the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 15 975 F.2d at 609. “[T]he existence or degree of prejudice to the 16 party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons 17 to deny a motion.” Id. But, unlike Rule 15’s analysis, “the 18 focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 19 seeking modification [of the schedule].” Id. If the “[moving] 20 party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 21 Even if “good cause” is shown, the moving party must still 22 “demonstrate that the amendment [is] proper under Rule 15.” Id. 23 at 608 (quoting Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 24 1987). Rule 15 requires the Court freely grant leave to amend 25 “when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 26 (1962). Although the Court should not grant leave to amend 27 under Rule 15 “automatically,” granting leave will be 28 appropriate absent a showing of bad faith, undue delay, 1 prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of amendment. In 2 re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas (“In re Western 3 States”), 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 B. Analysis 5 1. Rule 16(b) 6 The “good cause” requirement “typically will not be met 7 where the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order 8 has been aware of the facts and theories supporting amendment 9 since the inception of the action.” Id. at 737. Indeed, 10 “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and 11 offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 12 610. Plaintiffs argue there is good cause to extend the 13 discovery deadlines because they only recently received 14 information and evidence related to Chief Hahn and Lieutenant 15 Sood’s liability. See Mot. at 5, 9–10. Defendants counter that 16 Plaintiffs took too long to take Chief Hahn and Lieutenant 17 Sood’s depositions. See Opp’n at 3-4. 18 This case is distinct from Johnson. The plaintiff in 19 Johnson sued Mammoth Recreations, Inc. after a ski-lift 20 accident. 975 F.2d at 606. On two different occasions prior to 21 the scheduling order’s deadline for joining additional parties, 22 the defendant informed Johnson that Mammoth Recreations was not 23 the entity that owned and operated the ski lift; the correct 24 defendant was Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. Id. at 606-07. 25 Mammoth Recreations even offered to stipulate to a substitution 26 of the proper party. Id. at 607. Still, Johnson failed to file 27 a motion to amend his complaint until four months after the 28 scheduling order’s deadline for joining parties. Id. at 607. 1 The Court denied Johnson’s motion to amend, finding that 2 Johnson’s failure to “heed clear and repeated signals that not 3 all necessary parties had been named in the complaint [did] not 4 constitute diligence.” Id. at 609. 5 Here, the recent delays were primarily caused by the COVID- 6 19 pandemic. On May 1, 2020, the parties stipulated to extend 7 out all the discovery and expert deadlines by approximately six 8 to eleven months. See Stip., ECF No. 14; see also Min., ECF No. 9 15. Per the parties, “restrictions associated with the COVID-19 10 pandemic interfered with [their] ability to conduct discovery.” 11 Stip. at 2. Several depositions were completed in January of 12 2021. Melissa Nold Decl. (“Nold Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 30-1. 13 These had to be conducted remotely because of the pandemic. 14 Mot. at 2. Then on January 29, 2021, the parties again 15 stipulated to extending the discovery deadlines to complete 16 additional depositions. See Stip., ECF No. 25. This additional 17 round of depositions was completed in March of 2021. Mot. at 2. 18 Plaintiffs allege these depositions revealed previously unknown 19 and relevant information. They moved to amend their complaint 20 just under one month later. 21 These delays undoubtedly have contributed to a more 22 protracted litigation of this case. Conducting discovery and 23 organizing entirely remote depositions in the context of the 24 pandemic, where counsel and staff is working at a distance, is 25 no easy task. It is not unreasonable that it took Plaintiffs as 26 long as it did to complete seventeen depositions of all current 27 Plaintiffs, Defendants, and officer witnesses and all associated 28 discovery. In the final round of depositions, Plaintiffs 1 contend that they learned new facts relevant to their existing 2 claims that require the addition of new named defendants and one 3 additional related claim. It is uncontroverted that Plaintiffs 4 were not aware of this information prior to taking these 5 depositions. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made 6 the requisite showing of “good cause.” 7 Further, as discussed below, the Court finds that 8 Defendants will not be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are allowed to 9 modify the pretrial schedule and amend their FAC. Accordingly, 10 the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 16(b)’s 11 requirements. 12 2. Rule 15(a) 13 Rule 15 requires that leave to amend be freely given when 14 justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit 15 has repeatedly stated that “this policy is to be applied with 16 extreme liberality.” See, e.g., Owens v. Kaiser Foundation 17 Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001); Morongo 18 Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 19 1990). Defendants oppose amendment only insofar as it would 20 cause undue delay and prejudice. See Opp’n at 5–6. Neither 21 factor suggests that Plaintiffs’ motion falls short of Rule 15’s 22 low bar. 23 a. Undue Delay 24 In analyzing undue delay, the Court considers “whether the 25 moving party knew or should have known the facts and theories 26 raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson v. 27 Bank of Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs 28 wish to amend their FAC to add recently-deposed Chief Hahn and 1 Lieutenant Sood as named defendants, to update the facts of the 2 case based on information obtained during those depositions, to 3 include the City of Sacramento as a defendant in pre-existing 4 causes of action, and add a cause of action for supervisory 5 liability. Plaintiffs did not know the facts requiring amendment 6 of the FAC prior to conducting these depositions. And for the 7 reasons explained above, the timing of the March 2021 depositions 8 was not unreasonable considering the difficulties created by the 9 COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, Plaintiffs have not unduly delayed in 10 bringing this motion to amend. 11 b. Prejudice 12 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ amendment of the FAC 13 will not cause Defendants undue prejudice. Prejudice is the 14 “touchstone of the inquiry under [R]ule 15(a).” Eminence 15 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 16 2003). Indeed, “it is the consideration of prejudice to the 17 opposing party that carries the greatest weight” when a court 18 decides whether granting leave to amend is proper. Id. But 19 “[b]ald assertions of prejudice cannot overcome the strong policy 20 reflected in Rule 15(a) to facilitate a proper disposition on the 21 merits.” Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating and 22 Piping Industry of Southern California, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th 23 Cir. 1981) (internal quotes omitted). 24 In Hurn, the Ninth Circuit found that the defendant would 25 not be unduly prejudiced by the plaintiff’s proposed amendment, 26 in part, because “the operative facts remain[ed] the same.” Id. 27 at 1255. By contrast, in Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the 28 Ninth Circuit found defendants were unduly prejudiced because the 1 new claims set forth “would have greatly altered the nature of 2 the litigation and would have required defendants to have 3 undertaken, at a late hour, an entirely new course of defense.” 4 893 F.2d at 1079. 5 The proposed amendments to the FAC are set forth in Exhibit 6 1 of Plaintiffs’ motion. See Proposed Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), 7 Ex. 1 to Mot., ECF No. 30-3. Chief Hahn and Lieutenant Sood are 8 new named defendants and additional facts and one cause of action 9 have been added. Id. However, these additional facts and lone 10 cause of action do not significantly alter the theories of 11 liability or nature of the litigation. Plaintiffs remove an 12 entire cause of action in the proposed SAC; name Chief Hahn as a 13 defendant in the Monell cause of action; include Chief Hahn, 14 Lieutenant Sood, and the City of Sacramento in the wrongful death 15 cause of action; add the City of Sacramento in the survival 16 causes of action; and allege a cause of action against Lieutenant 17 Sood based on supervisory liability. Id. 18 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants will not have to 19 substantially change their litigation strategy to account for 20 these amendments. See Mot. at 7. The Court agrees. Naming the 21 relevant Doe supervisors to pre-existing causes of action and 22 adding a final cause of action for supervisory liability against 23 Lieutenant Sood does not greatly alter the nature of the 24 litigation. Moreover, given that Chief Hahn and Lieutenant Sood 25 have already been deposed and Plaintiffs propounded additional 26 discovery related to those depositions, see Mot. at 3, including 27 Chief Hahn and Lieutenant Sood in the proposed SAC should not 28 create much, if any, additional discovery. That Plaintiffs seek 1 to name the City of Sacramento as liable for respondeat superior 2 for their employees similarly should not require significant 3 amounts of additional discovery. Plaintiffs simply seek to hold 4 the city responsible for the actions of their defendant 5 employees, all of whom have been deposed and for whom discovery 6 has already been conducted. 7 Finally, at the time the motion was filed, the deadlines for 8 discovery and dispositive motions had not passed. With a 9 | modified pretrial schedule Defendants will be able to adequately 10 continue preparing their defense. 11 IIl. ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the FAC as set forth in Exhibit 1 to 14 their motion. Plaintiffs’ SAC shall be filed within twenty (20) 15 days of this Order. Defendants’ responsive pleading is due 16 twenty days thereafter. The Court also vacates the original and 17 modified scheduling orders at ECF Nos. 8, 15, and 26. By July 18 15, 2021, the parties shall file a joint stipulation, proposing 19 new dates for completing fact discovery, expert witness 20 disclosures, expert discovery cut off, filing dispositive 21 motions, the pretrial conference and trial. The Court will issue 22 a new scheduling order upon receipt of the joint stipulation. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 28, 2021 25 kA 26 teiren staves odermacr 7008 27 28 10