Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-03291
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma, Judge Corley granted amendment and denied defendants’ dismissal motion as moot.
The plaintiffs may file the proposed second amended complaint; the defendants must respond to the amended pleading rather than obtain a ruling on their pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma, the plaintiffs sued over Geoffrey Wise Bertagnolli’s death while in Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office custody. The court had previously partly granted and partly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs asked to file a second amended complaint adding facts and claims, removing some claims, and dismissing claims against certain defendants. Defendants opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the first amended complaint.
Judge Corley found no unfair harm, bad faith, undue delay, or futile claims from the proposed amendment. The court granted the motion to amend, required filing within three court days, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
The detailed version
- Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma · No. 3:20-cv-03291
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli, Dwaye Bertagnolli, and Jane Besaw brought a wrongful-death action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Geoffrey Wise Bertagnolli died while in Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office custody. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint.
Motions and Proposed Amendments
The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. They sought to add facts and claims involving excessive force, integral participation, failure to intervene, battery, and additional theories of liability under Monell. They also sought to remove their deliberate-indifference and Americans with Disabilities Act claims and dismiss claims against the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Essick in his official capacity.
Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The plaintiffs had asked defendants to agree to the proposed amendment, but defendants declined. The court therefore considered whether leave to amend was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
Court’s Analysis
Rule 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court may deny amendment for reasons such as prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith, undue delay, or futility. The court found no material prejudice because the case was in its early stages, discovery had not occurred, and the proposed claims arose from the same incident. Any additional investigation or motion practice was not significant enough to show prejudice.
The court also found no evidence of bad faith or undue delay. The plaintiffs provided defendants with the proposed amended complaint the same day they filed the first amended complaint, 21 days after the court’s prior dismissal order. The court concluded that the proposed amendments were not futile; defendants did not argue that the amendments would be futile.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint within three court days. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 30 and 31. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.