Regal v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Plaintiffs Devin Regal, E.R., and C.R. sued the County of Santa Clara and other defendants. After earlier amendments and dismissals, the case proceeded against the County and Consuelo Garcia. The court later granted summary judgment in favor of Garcia.

During the summary-judgment proceedings, plaintiffs’ counsel discovered that the First Amended Complaint listed the loss-of-familial-association claim against Garcia and former defendant Deputy Omar Cevallos, but not against the County. Plaintiffs asked to amend the complaint to assert that claim against the County. The court instructed them either to obtain the defendants’ agreement or to file a motion to modify the scheduling order and seek permission to amend. The County declined to agree, leading plaintiffs to file this motion.

Legal standards

Because the deadline for amending the complaint had passed, plaintiffs first had to show “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The main question was whether they acted diligently in seeking the amendment. If they met that requirement, they also had to satisfy Rule 15, which generally directs courts to allow amendments when justice requires unless factors such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, unfair prejudice, or futility weigh against amendment.

Court’s analysis

The court found that plaintiffs acted diligently. Although counsel’s mistake was serious and the relevant facts were known earlier, counsel did not realize that the County had been omitted from the claim until the summary-judgment proceedings. Plaintiffs then sought amendment within a matter of weeks.

The court also found that the County would not suffer significant unfair prejudice. The parties had conducted the relevant discovery, and the record indicated that both sides had operated under the shared understanding that plaintiffs sought damages for their familial loss claim against all defendants. The court acknowledged that the County had not been able to seek summary judgment on the claim, but concluded that the summary-judgment record contained enough evidence to create a factual dispute about the County’s opportunity to deliberate and that the County would not have prevailed on that claim at summary judgment.

Under Rule 15, the court found no undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. It therefore concluded that permission to amend should be granted.

Order

The court GRANTED plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Order Modification and for Leave to Amend. The order extended the deadline for amending the complaint until May 2, 2025, and stated that the Second Amended Complaint was to be filed and served through the electronic filing system on or before May 22, 2025. It also stated that no other deadlines were extended.