CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Allison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING No. 2:20-cv-02482 WBS AC PROTECTION ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, 14 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO v. FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Defendants.

18 COUNTY OF AMADOR, a public agency of the State of California, 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 23 Defendants.

25 ----oo0oo---- 26 This matter is before the court on the motion of plaintiff County of Amador (“Amador”) for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (See Mot. (Docket No. 24).) Because the amendment would have the effect of dismissing all claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as well as Amador’s breach of contract claim in its entirety, the parties argue whether the dismissal should be pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The court finds good cause to grant the motion under either standard.

8 Amador has requested that dismissal be without prejudice to reasserting its breach of contract claim against CDCR in state court. (See Mot. at 7, 9-10; Reply at 8 (Docket No. 31).) As defendants have identified no legal prejudice they would suffer if CDCR is dismissed -- agreeing that dismissal is proper -- the court will grant Amador’s motion to dismiss CDCR as a defendant. The court also finds good cause allow Amador to amend its complaint so as to dismiss its breach of contract claim. Defendants argue that Amador has unduly delayed the requested dismissal by continuing to propound discovery on CDCR after defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity on CDCR’s behalf, such that good cause is lacking. (See Opp. at 2-6 (Docket No. 30).) However, with the information before it, the court cannot conclude that Amador’s conduct evinces undue delay or bad faith.

23 Defendants ask that the court give defendants Allison and Covello 30 days to respond to Amador’s amended complaint. As Amador has not objected to this request, and because the additional time would not appear to prejudice Amador, the court will grant this request. Defendants’ request that the court exercise its inherent power to impose monetary sanctions on Amador for its alleged bad faith conduct in this litigation will be denied, however. To the extent defendants seek sanctions related to representations Amador has made to the court during the course of this litigation, they must do so via separate motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). And to the extent that defendants seek sanctions related to Amador’s conduct during the course of discovery, such a request would be properly before the magistrate judge assigned to this case, rather than the undersigned.

10 Finally, defendants’ request that the court preemptively strike portions of the prayer for relief from Amador’s yet-unfiled amended complaint is premature. Such requests are properly made, if at all, via motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 once Amador’s First Amended Complaint has been filed. See, e.g., Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010).

17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Amador’s motion to amend the complaint to dismiss CDCR as a defendant in this case and dismiss its breach of contract claim be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.1 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions and to strike portions of the amended complaint’s prayer for relief be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.

25 Defendants shall have 30 days from the date they are 27 1 The court’s grant of leave to amend to dismiss CDCR and the breach of contract claim are without prejudice to Amador filing its breach of contract claim against CDCR in state court. nee nnn ene en nen en ann enn nnn nn nnn nn ne on I served with Amador’s amended complaint to respond thereto.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. .

3 | Dated: January 25, 2022 bitte Ah ha bee WILLIAM B. SHUBB 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE