Huemer v. Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Foundation

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARIANA HUEMER, et al., Case No. 21-cv-07372-SVK 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 8 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FOUNDATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 50 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs Ariana Huemer and Eeyore’s Hen Harbor for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 50. The Court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

16 Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint because they have obtained the identities of three veterinarians who were originally named as Doe defendants, all of whom Plaintiffs allege to be “contracted veterinarian employee[s]” of Defendant Santa Cruz Animal Shelter. Id.; see also Dkt. 50-1 ¶¶ 10-12. The existing Defendants have responded to the motion for leave to amend by stating that they oppose Plaintiffs’ inclusion of a Monell claim that has been dismissed by the Court, but are otherwise neutral and “leave it for the Court’s determination whether Plaintiffs satisfied FRCP 15(a)(2).” Dkt. 55.

23 In the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Monell claim with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 40.

25 In their response to the present motion, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs seek to include the dismissed Monell claim in the proposed Third Amended Complaint only “for any future appeal.”

27 Dkt. 55. Plaintiffs did not file a reply on the present motion or otherwise dispute Defendants’ 1 Although the Court finds it appropriate under Rule 15(a)(2) to allow Plaintiffs to amend || the complaint to add the identity of Doe defendants, inclusion of the dismissed Monell claim is || neither necessary nor appropriate. The Ninth Circuit does not require a plaintiff to replead “claims || dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend” in order to preserve them for appeal. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to file a Third Amended Complaint insofar as it seeks to include the identities of Defendants previously named as Doe Defendants and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it seeks to include the now-dismissed Monell claim in the || Third Amended Complaint. The Court further ORDERS as follows: 10 1. Plaintiffs must file a Third Amended Complaint that conforms to this Order within 11 7 days of the date of the Order.

12 2. The existing Defendants must serve a response to the Third Amended Complaint 13 within 14 days of filing.

14 3. Plaintiffs must serve the Third Amended Complaint on the newly-named 15 Defendants within 14 days of filing the Third Amended Complaint, and those a 16 Defendants must file a response to the Third Amended Complaint within 14 days 17 of service.

18 SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: March 28, 2023 21 Suse val SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge