Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUBY BRADLEY, No. 2:19-cv-02419-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, 16 Defendant.

20 Plaintiff Ruby Bradley (“Plaintiff”) has filed this civil action seeing relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.1 (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24 On November 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 29.) On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this matter pro se but is currently represented by counsel, as discussed herein.

1 Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 33.) On December 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (ECF No. 34.)

3 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

11 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, and good cause appearing, the Court finds that it is appropriate to adopt in part and reject in part the Findings and Recommendations for the reasons stated herein.

14 Plaintiff initiated this action pro se and filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) while proceeding pro se. (ECF Nos. 1, 22.) The recent Findings and Recommendations recommended dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff’s FAC failed to cure the defects of the original Complaint and it did not appear that Plaintiff would be able to cure such defects through further amendment. (ECF No. 29.) The Court agrees the FAC is deficient.

19 However, after the magistrate judge issued the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff moved to allow Kellan Steven Patterson to appear in this action as Plaintiff’s counsel of record and the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF Nos. 30–31.) Plaintiff’s Objections seek leave to file an amended complaint on the basis that Plaintiff may now, with the benefit of counsel, cure the previously identified defects. (ECF No. 33 at 3–4.) Plaintiff further argues that she can now more readily utilize the informal meet and confer process to resolve any legal contentions with Defendant prior to filing an amended complaint so as to avoid the need for further motions to dismiss. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive.

27 “[L]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988)). Therefore, in light of counsel’s appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, the Court rejects the Findings and Recommendations with respect to the recommendation to dismiss the FAC with prejudice and instead grants leave to file an amended complaint.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 12, 2020 (ECF No. 29), are adopted in part and rejected in part as follows: 8 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with leave to amend.

9 3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint not later than thirty days after the electronic filing of this Order. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading in accordance with the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: December 17, 2020