1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO ARELLANO, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-01744-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING JULY 19, 2024 HEARING 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 CITY OF MERCED, et al., MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Fernando Arellano initiated this civil rights action on December 20, 2023, against 18 Defendants City of Merced and DOES 1-50. This case arises out of the alleged use of excessive 19 force to arrest Plaintiff Arellano on April 16, 2023. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 7-9.) Currently before the 20 Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to substitute City of Merced 21 Police Officers Tucker Zazueta, D. Thompson, and Mitchell King in place of previously named 22 DOE defendants. (Doc. 15-1 at 1-2.) Defendant City of Merced filed a statement of non- 23 opposition on June 19, 2024. (Doc. 16.) In the absence of opposition, the motion hearing set for 24 July 19, 2024, is VACATED, and the matter is deemed submitted on the current record. L. R. 25 230(g). 26 Having considered the moving papers, along with the record in this case, Plaintiff’s 27 motion for leave to file a first amended complaint will be GRANTED. 28 /// 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff timely filed his motion to amend on June 6, 2024, consistent with the Scheduling 3 Conference Order deadline to file stipulated amendments or motions to amend the pleadings. 4 (See Doc. 14 [Amendment to Pleadings: June 14, 2024]). Plaintiff’s motion is therefore 5 considered under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 standard for amendment to the 6 pleadings. Cf. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

(9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for amendments to pleadings. In this case, 8 however, the district court correctly found that it should address the issue under Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 16 because it had filed a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for 10 amending the pleadings, and the deadline had expired before [plaintiffs] moved to amend.”); 11 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that motion to 12 amend filed after pretrial scheduling order deadline must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 16); see also Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD- 14 JDP,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2024) (“Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 15 Procedure governs amendments to pleadings when the deadline for amendments in the pretrial 16 scheduling order had yet to pass at the time the motion for leave to amend was filed . . . .”). Rule 17 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

19 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 20 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the leave sought 21 should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 22 Foman v. Davis,

(1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 23 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 24

, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 25 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb,

, 979 26 (9th Cir. 1981). 27 Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 28 under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of 1 amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. 2 Buckley,

(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon,

, 3 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini,

, 204 (9th 4 Cir. 1991)). These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long 5 been held to be the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. 6 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and 7 others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 8 weight”); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii,

(9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the 9 opposing party is the most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of 10 the remaining factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. 11 Eminence Capital,

. 12 Plaintiff seeks leave to substitute Officers Zazueta, Thompson, and King in place of 13 previously named DOE defendants. Plaintiff explains that discovery is ongoing, and he 14 uncovered new facts early in the matter. Specifically, Plaintiff learned the names of the three 15 DOE officers named in the original complaint. (Doc. 15-1 at 3-4.) 16 In considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that leave to file a first amended 17 complaint should be granted to allow the substitution of Officers Zazueta, Thompson, and King in 18 place of DOE defendants. First, there is no indication of undue delay. Plaintiff timely submitted 19 his motion for leave to amend prior to the deadline for amendment of pleadings. Second, there 20 will be little prejudice to Defendant City of Merced in permitting the amendment. The case is 21 still in the early stages of discovery, with a non-expert discovery deadline of March 31, 2025, an 22 expert discovery deadline of June 30, 2025, and a trial date of May 5, 2026. (See Doc. 14.) 23 Further, Defendant City of Merced does not oppose the motion. Third, there is no indication that 24 amendment is futile. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of defendants if “(A) 25 any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or 26 arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences; and (B) 27 any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 20(a)(2)(A), (B). Plaintiff alleges that Officers Zazueta, Thompson, and King are the officers of 1 the City of Merced Police Department involved in the April 16, 2023 incident alleged in the 2 complaint. Plaintiff’s right to relief for the asserted claims against Defendant City of Merced and 3 Officers Zazueta, Thompson, and King therefore arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 4 series of transactions or occurrences.1 Additionally, there are questions of fact and/or law 5 common to all defendants related to the alleged use of excessive force. Fourth, there is no 6 indication that the amendment is brought in bad faith. Fifth, and finally, Plaintiff has not 7 previously amended the complaint. 8 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) is 11 GRANTED. 12 2. Within five (5) court days, Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint, a copy 13 of which was attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of James Cook filed in support of the 14 motion. 15 4. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with 16 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following service of the First 17 Amended Complaint. 18

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: June 20, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27

28 1 Plaintiff also contends that all claims relate back to the date of the original complaint.