William Meyer, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al.; Madison Meyer

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00341
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM MEYER, et al., Lead Case No.: 21-cv-341-RSH-BLM Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. 13 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., WILLIAM MEYER AND DANA 14 GASCAY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE Defendants. 15 TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED __________________________________ COMPLAINT 16

MADISON MEYER, 17 [ECF Nos. 305; 307] Plaintiff, 18

v. 19 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 Before the Court is a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint filed by 24 plaintiffs William Meyer and Dana Gascay. ECF No. 305. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 25 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the motion presented appropriate for resolution without oral 26 argument. For the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ 27 motion. 28 /// 1 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 2 The instant case arises from the alleged unauthorized video surveillance of Plaintiffs 3 and their daughter, Madison Meyer, at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego (“Rady’s”). 4 A. Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 5 On February 25, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action against the County of 6 San Diego (“County”), the County’s Health and Human Services Agency (“HHSA”), 7 Rady’s, the Regents of the University of California (“Regents”), Elizabeth Reese 8 (“Reese”), Kayla Valenzuela (“Valenzuela”), Dr. Shalon Nienow (“Nienow”), and Tiffany 9 Paugh (“Paugh”). 21cv341 (“Meyer I”), ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ original Complaint asserted 10 six causes of action for: (1) violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Monell claims against the County, HHSA, Rady’s, and the 12 Regents; (3) violation of California Civil Code § 43; (4) violation of California’s Bane Act, 13 § 52.1 of the California Civil Code; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) 14 intrusion into private affairs. Id. at ¶¶ 52–91. 15 Defendants subsequently filed three separate motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 11 16 (defendant Rady and Reese’s motion to dismiss); 13 (defendant Regents and Nienow’s 17 motion to dismiss); 17 (defendant County’s motion to dismiss). 18 B. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 19 On June 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) withdrawing 20 their claims against the HHSA and Regents. ECF No. 27. The FAC asserted five causes of 21 action for: (1) judicial deception, nonconsensual medical procedures, and invasion of 22 privacy under § 1983 and related Monell claims; (2) violation of California Civil Code 23 § 43; (3) violation of California’s Bane Act; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 24 and (5) intrusion into private affairs. Id. at ¶¶ 70–161. Upon Plaintiffs’ filing, the Court 25 denied Defendants motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint as moot. ECF No. 28. 26 Defendants afterwards filed four separate motions to dismiss and an anti-SLAPP 27 motion to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC. ECF Nos. 31 (defendant Nienow’s motion to dismiss); 32 28 (defendants Rady and Reese’s motion to dismiss); 35 (defendant Valenzuela and Paugh’s 1 motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion to strike); 36 (defendant County’s motion to 2 dismiss). On October 21, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ 3 various motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC. ECF No. 57. 4 C. Second Amended Complaint 5 On December 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 6 against the County, Rady’s, Reese, Valenzuela, Nienow, Paugh, Catherine Craft (“Craft”) 7 and Tami Snyder (“Snyder.”). ECF No. 61. Plaintiffs’ SAC asserts eight causes of action 8 for: (1) unwarranted surveillance and invasion of privacy under §1983; (2) judicial 9 deception under §1983; (3) unwarranted medical procedures/examinations under §1983; 10 (4) a Monell claim against the County; (5) a Monell claim against Rady’s; (6) invasion of 11 privacy/intrusion into private affairs; (7) invasion of privacy in violation of California 12 Constitution, Article 1, § 1; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 219– 13 383. 14 On February 28, 2022, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC. 15 ECF No. 83. On March 16, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ 16 motion. ECF No. 95. In so doing, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 17 Monell claims asserted against both the County and Rady’s. Id. at 33–43. 18 Although the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their Monell claims, it 19 expressly cautioned Plaintiffs as follows: 20 Plaintiffs have not requested leave to amend, nor have they indicated how an amendment may save their claims. If Plaintiffs seek to amend 21 their Monell claims only, they must file a noticed motion for leave to 22 amend within 30 days of this Order. The motion must address and apply the relevant legal standards that govern subsequent amendment of the 23 pleadings, and strictly comply with the Civil Local Rules and the 24 undersigned’s Civil Procedures. The proposed amended complaint should address the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Monell claims, as 25 identified above. Defendants will have the opportunity to oppose such 26 a motion, consistent with the timeline provided in the Local Rules. 27 Id. at 50 (emphasis in original). 28 /// 1 Plaintiffs did not file a motion for leave to amend their Monell claims within this 2 deadline. See Docket. 3 D. June 29, 2023 Scheduling Order 4 On June 29, 2023 the Court issued a scheduling order in this case setting the deadline 5 for the Parties to amend pleadings to September 15, 2023. ECF No. 120 at 2. Plaintiffs did 6 not file a motion for leave to amend by this deadline. See Docket. 7 E. Consolidation of Meyer I and Meyer II 8 On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs’ daughter, now a legal adult, initiated a separate 9 action against Defendants in California Superior Court. Meyer v. County of San Diego, 10 24cv438 (“Meyer II”), ECF No. 1 at 5–115. On March 6, 2024, Defendants removed Meyer 11 II to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 3. On April 24, 2024, the Court 12 granted Defendants’ motion to consolidate the Meyer I and Meyer II cases. Meyer II, ECF 13 No. 14. In light of this consolidation, the Parties filed a joint motion seeking a timeline to 14 amend plaintiff Madison Meyer’s complaint. ECF No. 233. The Parent Plaintiffs did not 15 seek leave to amend at this time. See id. 16 On June 3, 2024, plaintiff Madison Meyer filed a FAC in the consolidated case. ECF 17 No. 235. On February 10, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ 18 motion to dismiss plaintiff Madison Meyer’s FAC. ECF No. 270. On March 10, 2025, 19 plaintiff Madison Meyer filed her SAC. ECF No. 276. On April 1, 2025, the Court granted 20 the Parties’ joint request to allow Plaintiff to file a TAC to substitute one of the Doe 21 defendants with defendant Hurd. ECF No. 282 at 1. 22 On April 14, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Madison Meyer’s 23 TAC. ECF No. 285. On July 21, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part 24 Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 289. Of relevance here, in resolving Defendants’ motions 25 to dismiss plaintiff Madison Meyer’s amended pleadings, the Court permitted certain of 26 her Monell claims to proceed. See ECF Nos. 270; 289. 27 F. Scheduling Order 28 The Court issued a new scheduling order in this case on August 27, 2025. ECF No. 1 302. Given the multiple opportunities afforded to the Parties to amend their pleadings, the 2 Court declined to set a deadline for further amendment. See id. On September 5, 2025, 3 Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a TAC. ECF No. 305. Defendants have filed a 4 response, and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. ECF Nos. 306; 308. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs request leave to: (1) substitute Pamela Hurd for the 7 Doe defendant formerly identified as “Doe HHSA Manager” in Plaintiffs’ SAC; and (2) 8 amend their Monell claims against the County and Rady’s. ECF No. 305 at 3. The Court 9 addresses these requests, in turn, below. 10 A. Pamela Hurd 11 Plaintiffs first request leave to substitute Ms. Hurd as a previously identified Doe 12 defendant in this action. The record reflects that Ms. Hurd was not identified as a defendant 13 until March 19, 2025. ECF No. 305-2 at 3. The County does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request. 14 ECF No. 306 at 9. In light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any opposition, the Court 15 GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to substitute Ms. Hurd in place of a previously identified Doe 16 defendant in this action. 17 B. Monell Claims 18 Plaintiffs next request leave to amend their pleadings to assert the same Monell 19 claims the Court found were plausibly pleaded by plaintiff Madison Meyer. ECF No. 305 20 at 3. 21 Before addressing the merits, the Court must first consider the proper legal standard 22 applicable to Plaintiffs’ request. Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion should be construed 23 as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 16, 2023 Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ 24 Monell claims and setting a deadline for amendment. ECF No. 306 at 9–12. Plaintiffs 25 respond the instant motion is governed by the leave to amend standard under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 15, but also suggest that there is good cause for Plaintiffs’ amendment 27 under Rule 16. ECF No. 308 at 7–8. 28 /// 1 Here, Plaintiffs were provided multiple opportunities to plead their Monell claims. 2 ECF Nos. 1; 27; 61. After their Monell claims were dismissed, Plaintiffs were then given 3 multiple opportunities to request leave to further amend these claims, but repeatedly failed 4 to do so within the deadlines set by the Court. The first of these deadlines was set over two 5 years ago in the Court’s March 16, 2023 order on Plaintiffs’ SAC, which required Plaintiffs 6 to file a motion for leave within thirty days of the Court’s Order. ECF No. 95 at 50. The 7 Court subsequently set a deadline for the Parties to amend their pleadings in its June 29, 8 2023 scheduling order. ECF No. 120 at 2. Plaintiff did not meet either of the above 9 deadlines. Even after the case was consolidated, Plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend their 10 complaint in the Parties’ joint motion to the Court. See ECF No. 233. 11 In light of the above, the proper framework requires the Court to apply Rule 16(b)’s 12 “good cause” standard followed by Rule 15. See DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. 13 Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Where . . . a party seeks leave to amend 14 after the deadline set in the scheduling order has passed, the party’s request is judged 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (‘FRCP’) 16’s ‘good cause’ standard rather than the 16 ‘liberal amendment policy’ of FRCP 15(a).”); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 17 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows 18 for amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly found that 19 it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 because it had filed a 20 pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings[.]”) (citing 21 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–09 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Rule 22 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 23 amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 24 end.” Id. 25 Plaintiffs contend their request for leave to amend their Monell claims is warranted 26 because they only concluded such an amendment would not be futile after the Court’s 27 orders on plaintiff Madison Meyer’s Monell claims. ECF No. 305-1 at 12–13. In this case, 28 Plaintiffs request “evidences an improper wait-and-see approach to litigation.” Ortega v. 1 Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 122CV01581ADAEPG, 2023 WL 3569795, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 2 18, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 122CV01581ADAEPG, 2023 WL 3 4669971 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2023). 4 Notably, Plaintiffs do not contend any of the factual allegations underlying their 5 proposed amendments were unavailable to them until recently. See ECF Nos. 305-1; 308. 6 This factor weighs against a finding of diligence. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network 7 Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court did not err in denying leave to 8 amend where “[n]othing in the proposed amended complaint relied on facts that were 9 unavailable before the stipulated deadline.”); see also Cortez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, 10 Inc., No. 19-56354, 2021 WL 3214765, at *1 (9th Cir. July 29, 2021) (“Because the facts 11 underlying the proposed [] claim were already known when [plaintiff] filed her complaint, 12 and she filed her motion [for leave to amend] months after the scheduling order’s deadline, 13 the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that [plaintiff] did not establish good 14 cause to extend the deadline.”). 15 Instead, Plaintiffs’ briefing makes clear the “critical litigation development” 16 underlying their instant motion for leave was the Court’s orders on plaintiff Madison 17 Meyer’s Monell claims. ECF Nos. 305-1 at 9; 308 at 8. 18 In short, Plaintiffs moved for leave only after it became apparent that the Court 19 would not rule adversely on a motion to dismiss the Monell claims they now seek leave to 20 amend. This type of wait-and-see falls short of the diligence required under Rule 16. See 21 Acri v. Int’l Asso. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) 22 (district court did not err in denying leave to amend where plaintiffs’ delay in bringing 23 cause of action was a “tactical choice”); TC Rich, LLC v. Pacifica Chem. Inc., No. 24 CV154878DMGAGRX, 2019 WL 13060484, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2019) (“The fact 25 that Plaintiffs made a tactical decision amounting to a ‘wait and see’ approach demonstrates 26 that they did not diligently seek an extension of the deadline for amending the 27 Complaint.”); Giron v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 215CV08869ODWJCX, 2017 WL 28 11537595, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (holding plaintiffs had not demonstrated good 1 ||cause for leave to amend where the only explanation offered was a “web of tactical 2 || decisions” including waiting on the resolution of other motions); see also Jang v. Bos. Sci. 3 || Scimed, Inc., 729 F.3d 357, 368 (3d Cir. 2013) (“This court has declined to reward a wait- 4 ||and-see approach to pleading.”). The Court concludes Plaintiffs have not demonstrated 5 || good cause to amend their Monell claims under Rule 16. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 8 || Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Specifically, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ leave 9 file a TAC that substitutes Pamela Hurd for the Doe defendant formerly identified as 10 ||““Doe HHSA Manager” in Plaintiffs’ SAC. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED in all other 11 ||respects. Plaintiffs’ TAC must be filed within five days of the date of this Order.' 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: October 23, 2025 C ‘ 14 Jihut Howe 15 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs’ joint motion to continue [ECF No. 307] as moot. °