Dominguez v. City Of San Jose

Background

This order concerns the plaintiffs’ request to amend the case schedule and file a Third Amended Complaint. The action arises from the alleged lethal shooting of Jacob Arturo Dominguez by San Jose Police Department officer Michael Pina. Jessica Dominguez brought the action as Mr. Dominguez’s successor-in-interest, on her own behalf, and as guardian ad litem for the couple’s three children.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted three claims: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Officer Pina violated Mr. Dominguez’s Fourth Amendment rights; a claim under California’s Bane Act based on alleged excessive force; and a claim under California’s Ralph Act based on alleged violence motivated by racial bias. After summary-judgment proceedings, only the § 1983 claim against Officer Pina and the Bane Act claim remained.

The Second Amended Complaint alleged that the defendants’ conduct deprived the plaintiffs of Mr. Dominguez’s care, comfort, society, protection, love, companionship, affection, solace, moral support, physical assistance in maintaining the home, and financial support. The court had previously ruled that, under that complaint, the plaintiffs could not seek wrongful-death damages at trial because they had not asserted a Fourteenth Amendment claim on behalf of Ms. Dominguez and the children. The court nevertheless allowed them to seek permission to add such a claim.

Parties’ positions

The plaintiffs argued that good cause existed to modify the scheduling order because the parties had litigated wrongful-death damages throughout the case. They pointed to the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Second Amended Complaint, their expert Phillip Allman’s report concerning wrongful-death damages, and discovery the defendants had sought from the children about those damages. They also argued that the defendants would not be prejudiced because they had long known that the plaintiffs sought wrongful-death damages.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ failure to assert the Fourteenth Amendment claim earlier showed a lack of diligence. They also argued that amendment shortly before trial would prejudice them because they had not obtained an opposing expert, had not deposed the minor children, had prepared for trial based on the existing complaint, and had not had an opportunity to seek dismissal or summary judgment on a Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that this inquiry primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the change, although the court may also consider prejudice to the opposing party.

The court found good cause. It characterized the proposed amendment as technical because the plaintiffs had repeatedly disclosed that they sought wrongful-death damages, including in the Second Amended Complaint and the expert disclosures. The court concluded that refusing to allow the amendment merely because the complaint had not used the words “Fourteenth Amendment” would be unfair when the parties had understood the damages issue throughout the litigation.

The court also found that the defendants had not shown sufficient prejudice. The defendants had known about the wrongful-death damages allegations for years, had conducted discovery on the issue, and had had an opportunity to depose Mr. Allman. The court also noted that the defendants had declined to seek a continued trial date after being given the opportunity to do so.

Under Rule 15(a)(2), further amendment requires the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. The court found the amendment proper because the schedule would remain unchanged, prejudice to the defendants would be minimal, and there was no indication of bad faith or a delaying motive.

Order

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the scheduling order to permit filing of the Third Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs were ordered to file it within three days of the order. The order permitted the proposed Fourteenth Amendment claim to be added; it did not decide the ultimate merits of that claim or the plaintiffs’ entitlement to wrongful-death damages.