1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CESAR GASTELUM, No. 2:24-CV-1425-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. See 19 ECF No. 20. A proposed first amended complaint has been submitted with the motion. See ECF 20 No. 20-1 (Exhibit A). Defendants Butte County, Butte County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) detective 21 Tristan Harper, and BCSO sergeant Patrick McNelis (collectively the Butte County Defendants) 22 have filed a partial opposition. See ECF No. 21. Plaintiff has filed a reply. See ECF No. 22. 23 The parties appeared before the undersigned for a hearing on October 15, 2025, via Zoom. 24 Joseph Manuel, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff. Megan Boelter, Esq., appeared for the Butte 25 County Defendants. After hearing arguments from the parties, the matter was submitted. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her 2 pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is 3 one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive 4 pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 5 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all 6 other situations, a party’s pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all 7 the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this Court's local rules, a motion for leave to 8 amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint filed as an exhibit to the motion. 9 See E. Dist. Cal. Local Rule 137(c). 10 Where leave of court to amend is required and properly sought, the Court 11 considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original 12 and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial 13 economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was 14 a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on 15 the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by 16 amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i,

, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to 17 amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 18 Leighton,

(9th Cir. 1987). 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on May 20, 2024. 22 See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that he was visiting the home of a friend, Heather Pello, on 23 May 26, 2022, when Butte County Sheriff’s Office deputies “burst in with guns drawn and 24 proceeded to verbally abuse and threaten Ms. Pello.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff was present at the time. 25 See id. Ms. Pello was handcuffed while officers conducted a search. See id. Plaintiff was in 26 the bedroom when officers handcuffed him and pointed a gun towards him. See id. The 27 officers arrived at approximately 11:20 a.m. and left at approximately 12:26 p.m. after releasing 28 Ms. Pelo and Plaintiff. See id. The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the officers 1 arrived at the wrong address and were actually intending to serve a “Ramey warrant” on an 2 individual named Kerry Thao. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts a single claim for unlawful search and 3 seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 5-7. 4 The Butte County Defendants filed their answer on July 8, 2024. See ECF No. 6. 5 Following consent of all parties and reassignment of the action, an amended scheduling order 6 was issued on October 29, 2024. See ECF No. 19. Non-expert discovery closed on August 30, 7 2025. See id. Expert discovery closes on February 13, 2026. See id. A pre-trial conference is 8 set for October 15, 2026. See id. A jury trial is scheduled to commence on November 16, 9 2026. See id. 10 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 In his motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff seeks leave of the Court to add 13 additional defendants and an additional Plaintiff, Ms. Pello. See ECF No. 20. Specifically, 14 Plaintiff seeks to add the following as new defendants: (1) California State University Chico 15 Police Department (CSUPD); (2) CSUPD officer Bryce Davison; (3) CSUPD officer Durl 16 White; (4) CSUPD officer Willaim Kolb; and (5) CSUPD officer Kimberly Biswell 17 (collectively the CSUPD Defendants). See ECR No. 20-1, pg. 3 (proposed first amended 18 complaint at Exhibit A). 19 Plaintiff asks that the action proceed on the following claims:

20 Count I Gastelum’s Fourth Amendment claim against the County Defendants (the original claim). 21 Count II Gastelum’s Fourth Amendment claim against the CSUPD 22 Defendants.

23 Count III Pello’s Fourth Amendment claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 24 Count IV Gastelum’s conspiracy claim against the County Defendants 25 and the CSUPD Defendants.

26 Count V Pello’s conspiracy claim against the CSUPD Defendants.

27 Count VI Pello’s false imprisonment claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 28 1 Count VII Pello’s assault claim against the CSUPD Defendants.

2 Count VIII Pello’s battery claim against the CSUPD Defendants.

3 Count IX Pello’s invasion of privacy claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 4 Count X Pello’s trespass claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 5 Count XI Pello’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against 6 the CSUPD Defendants.

7 Count XII Pello’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 8 Count XIII Pello’s Bane Act claim against the CSUPD Defendants. 9 ECF No. 20-1, pgs. 7-13. 10 11 Ms. Pello does not seek to be added to the litigation as to claims against the 12 Butte County Defendants. See ECF No. 20. According to Plaintiff Gastelum, Ms. Pello 13 reached a settlement of such claims in August 2023 in a separate action, Pello v. Butte County, 14 et al., 2:23-cv-0130-KJM-DMC. 15 Plaintiff Gastelum asserts that amendment is appropriate because he only learned 16 at a recent deposition that CSUPD officers were involved in the May 2022 incident, and he had 17 been previously told in 2022 prior to filing the instant action that BCSO officers were the only 18 ones involved in the incident. See ECF No. 20, pg. 2; see also ECF No. 20-2 (June 20, 2022, 19 letter from Shelley Kenner, the CSUPD Record and Property Analyst, Exhibit B) and ECF No. 20 20-3 (deposition transcript excerpt, Exhibit C). Plaintiff Gastelum does not provide the Court 21 with the date of the recent deposition. According to Plaintiff Gastelum, the CSUPD Defendants 22 fraudulently concealed their involvement. See ECF No. 20, pg. 4. 23 The Butte County Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff Gastelum’s request to add 24 claims on his own behalf against the CSUPD Defendants (Counts II and IV). See ECF No. 21, 25 pg. 1. The Butte County Defendants, however, oppose adding Ms. Pello as a plaintiff to this 26 action. See id. at 2-4. According to the Butte County Defendants, amendment should be 27 denied because: (1) Pello’s case against them has been resolved; and (2) Pello’s claims against 28 the CSUPD Defendants are barred by the statute of limitations. See id. The Butte County 1 Defendants’ first argument – that Pello’s case against them has been resolved in a separate 2 action – is not persuasive because Ms. Pello does not seek to relitigate those claims. Rather, as 3 made clear in the motion for leave to amend and at the hearing, Ms. Pello seeks to pursue 4 claims against the CSUPD Defendants only. These claims were not the subject of the prior 5 lawsuit by Ms. Pello against the Butte County Defendants which settled in August 2023. Thus, 6 contrary to the Butte County Defendants’ contention, allowing Ms. Pello to proceed on new 7 claims against the CSUPD Defendants would not result in relitigating previously resolved 8 claims. 9 As to the statute of limitations, this argument is more appropriately made by the 10 CSUPD Defendants, not the Butte County Defendants, as no new claims are being made against 11 them by Ms. Pello. Moreover, Plaintiff has presented a good faith argument of fraudulent 12 concealment, which could result in tolling of the statute of limitations should the defense be 13 raised by the CSUPD Defendants. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that leave to amend is warranted. 15 Plaintiff’s motion will be granted. 16 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, ECF No. 20 20, is granted. 21 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the first amended complaint 22 submitted at ECF No. 20-1. 23 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the 24 addition of Heather Pello as a plaintiff. 25 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons for the following 26 new defendants: (a) California State University Chico Police Department; (b) Officer Bryce 27 Davison; (c) Officer Durl White; (d) Officer William Kolb; and (e) Officer Kimberly 28 Biswell. / / / 1 5. Service of process on the new defendants shall be promptly accomplished 2 || pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 6. The Butte County Defendants shall file a response to the first amended 4 | complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 5 7. Non-expert discovery, which closed on August 30, 2025, as to Plaintiff 6 || Gastelum’s original claim against the Butte County Defendants, is re-opened but only as to new 7 || claims by both plaintiffs against the newly named defendants. 8 8. Upon the appearances of the newly named defendants, the Court will set a 9 || further scheduling conference to discuss any necessary adjustments to the current case 10 || schedule. 1] 12 | Dated: November 17, 2025 Ss..c0_, 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28