Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-04191
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rubalcava v. City of San Jose, Judge Freeman granted leave to amend the complaint and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Lionel Rubalcava may file the proposed amended complaint. The amendment removes the County of Santa Clara, six individual San Jose Police Department officers, and four § 1983 claims, while leaving the remaining parties and claims subject to the amended pleading. The County of Santa Clara and investigators Douglas Kaleas and Brian Geer opposed the motion but did not obtain the requested striking of allegations.
What happened
In Rubalcava v. City of San Jose, Lionel Rubalcava asked to file an amended complaint after his lawyer discovered errors and after an earlier order on defendants’ dismissal motions. The proposed complaint would remove seven defendants and four claims, revise some factual allegations, and add no new claims or parties.
The City of San Jose and the individual San Jose police officers did not oppose the request. The County of Santa Clara and investigators Douglas Kaleas and Brian Geer opposed it, arguing that allegations left in the complaint could improperly expand discovery. Rubalcava said those allegations were relevant to the events underlying his claims.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found good cause and no prejudice, granted the motion for leave to amend, and ordered Rubalcava to file the proposed amended complaint by November 12, 2021. She also vacated the January 6, 2022 hearing.
The detailed version
- Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose · No. 5:20-cv-04191
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 29, 2021
Background
Lionel Rubalcava moved for permission to file an amended complaint. His counsel had recently discovered errors in the pleading, and Rubalcava sought to remove parties and claims that he no longer wished to pursue. The proposed amended complaint would omit seven defendants, including the County of Santa Clara and six individual San Jose Police Department officers; omit four claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and make limited changes to the factual allegations. It would not add claims or parties.
The City of San Jose and the individual San Jose police officers named as defendants did not oppose the motion. The County of Santa Clara and County investigators Douglas Kaleas and Brian Geer opposed it. They argued that leaving some allegations about County misconduct in the proposed complaint could improperly expand the scope of discovery and asked the court to require those allegations to be removed. Rubalcava responded that the allegations were relevant to the events underlying his claims and that he did not intend to misuse discovery.
Legal standard and analysis
Because the deadline for amending the complaint had passed, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). That standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment, although possible prejudice to the opposing party may also support denial.
The court found good cause. It relied on counsel’s recent discovery of pleading errors and Rubalcava’s effort to remove parties and claims he no longer sought to pursue. The court also found no prejudice to any party. It found no basis to conclude that Rubalcava would abuse discovery or engage in improper conduct by retaining the challenged allegations. The court further stated that an opposition brief was not the appropriate way to seek affirmative relief, such as striking material from a pleading.
Ruling
The court granted Rubalcava’s motion for leave to amend. It ordered him to file the proposed amended complaint by November 12, 2021. The court also vacated the hearing set for January 6, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.