Filed: Jun. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON EX-PARTE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT JEFFREY T. MILLER , District Judge . On October 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Jesus Castellanos and Raquel Castellanos brought suit asserting claims for excessive force and retaliation ("Bivens claims") against unknown Custom and Border Protection agents, a myriad of claims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., and a Bane Act claim, California Civil Code section 52.1. (Doc. No. 1.) O
Summary: ORDER ON EX-PARTE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT JEFFREY T. MILLER , District Judge . On October 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Jesus Castellanos and Raquel Castellanos brought suit asserting claims for excessive force and retaliation ("Bivens claims") against unknown Custom and Border Protection agents, a myriad of claims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., and a Bane Act claim, California Civil Code section 52.1. (Doc. No. 1.) On..
More
ORDER ON EX-PARTE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
JEFFREY T. MILLER, District Judge.
On October 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Jesus Castellanos and Raquel Castellanos brought suit asserting claims for excessive force and retaliation ("Bivens claims") against unknown Custom and Border Protection agents, a myriad of claims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and a Bane Act claim, California Civil Code section 52.1. (Doc. No. 1.)
On May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 17.) The Amended Complaint seeks to; (1) substitute Michael Hedlund, Fernando Zaragoza and Adam Guerrero for the unknown Custom and Border Protection agents (Doe Defendants); (2) state Bivens claims against Hedlund, Zaragoza and Guerrero; (3) state FTCA claims against Hedlund, Zaragoza and Guerrero; (4) revise the facts to "more accurately reflect the video surveillance camera footage produced in discovery;" and (5) add a new cause of action for False Imprisonment. (Doc. No. 17 at 3-4.)
Although the ex-parte motion should have been filed as a noticed motion, Defendants have had almost two weeks to file a response but have not filed any motion opposing Plaintiffs' motion to amend, and the court perceives no prejudice to Defendants in allowing an amendment in which Defendants themselves acquiesce.1 Moreover, Rule 15(a)(2) advises that trial courts "should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). See, e.g., Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citation omitted) ("This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.") Further, the court does not perceive Plaintiffs to be seeking amendment in bad faith and sees no reason to expect that the amendment will unduly delay the litigation. See AmeriSource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysit W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006 ("[A] district court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment (1) prejudices the other party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile."). In addition, the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint was filed in accordance with the deadline set forth in the scheduling order. See Doc. No. 15 at ¶ 1 (providing motions to amend pleadings must be filed by May 31, 2019).
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' unopposed motion (Doc. No. 17) for leave to file a first amended complaint. It shall be Plaintiffs responsibility to file the First Amended Complaint with the court by June 20, 2019. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint within the limits established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
