Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody

Background

The plaintiffs sought permission to replace their Second Amended Complaint with a Third Amended Complaint. The proposed changes would update allegations about COVID-19 orders, add facts concerning the State and County’s reasons for issuing those orders, include information from discovery, add Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams as a defendant, and add First Amendment retaliation and equal-protection claims.

The case’s scheduling order set a March 22, 2021 deadline for amending pleadings. Because that deadline had passed, the court first applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which requires a party to show “good cause” to modify a scheduling deadline. The court then applied Rule 15(a), which generally permits amendment with the court’s permission. Under Rule 15, the court considered bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing parties, and whether the proposed amendment would be futile.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause because the plaintiffs had pursued the proposed changes diligently. They had negotiated with the defendants about a possible agreed amendment since April 2021, promptly disclosed that the proposed changes would extend beyond updates to the COVID-19 orders, and developed additional allegations based on limited discovery.

The court found no bad faith or undue delay. It also found no significant prejudice because discovery had only recently begun, the deadlines for dispositive motions and trial were still in the future, and no other motions were pending. The court concluded that the proposed claims against Williams and the proposed equal-protection claim would not improperly broaden discovery at that stage.

The State defendants argued that the equal-protection claim was moot because injunctions had been entered against some of the challenged restrictions and that the claim was futile because the guidance applied to all indoor businesses and activities, not just churches. The plaintiffs disagreed. The court declined to resolve the mootness dispute on the amendment motion, explaining that an amendment is futile only when no set of facts could support a valid claim. The court concluded that it could not make that determination based on the briefing then before it.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. The order therefore allowed the plaintiffs to pursue the proposed amendments, including the claims involving Williams and the equal-protection claim. It did not decide the merits of those claims or whether the equal-protection claim was ultimately moot. The order also set page limits for any later dismissal-motion briefing: 25 pages total for the defendants’ briefs, 25 pages total for the plaintiffs’ opposition, and 15 pages total for the defendants’ replies.