Filed: May 08, 2019
Latest Update: May 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES , District Judge . On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff Tasha Williamson initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant National City and doe defendants for excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Cal. Civ. Code 52.1, violence because of race in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 51.7, and Monell liability. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brings a claim based on allegations that she sustained injuries when National City police officers handcuffed and remov
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES , District Judge . On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff Tasha Williamson initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant National City and doe defendants for excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Cal. Civ. Code 52.1, violence because of race in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 51.7, and Monell liability. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brings a claim based on allegations that she sustained injuries when National City police officers handcuffed and remove..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff Tasha Williamson initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant National City and doe defendants for excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, violence because of race in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7, and Monell liability. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brings a claim based on allegations that she sustained injuries when National City police officers handcuffed and removed her during a protest on July 24, 2018. Id. at 4.
On April 2, 2019, the Court dismissed the claims against Defendant National City without prejudice. (ECF No. 18).
On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, with a noticed hearing date of May 6, 2019. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff asserts that the proposed amended complaint substitutes the true names of National City police officers for doe defendants and adds state law claims against National City. Plaintiff asserts that the case is in its early stages and that there has been no undue delay.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the declaration of Douglas Gilliland, counsel for Plaintiff, in support of the motion to amend. (ECF No. 21).
The record reflects that no response in opposition to the motion to amend has been filed.
A court "should freely give leave" to amend "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This policy is applied with "extraordinary liberality." Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Once an answer to the complaint has been filed, as in this case, courts may deny leave to amend if the proposed amendment would be futile, is sought in bad faith, will create undue delay, or if "undue prejudice to the opposing party will result." Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).
Having reviewed the motion and supporting documents, and having received no opposition from any defendant,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to amend filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file the proposed amended complaint that was attached to the motion to amend.
