Huemer v. Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Foundation

Background

Ariana Huemer and Eeyore’s Hen Harbor moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. They said they had learned the identities of three veterinarians who had originally been named as Doe defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the veterinarians were contracted employees of Santa Cruz Animal Shelter.

The existing defendants opposed adding a Monell claim that the court had previously dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. They said the plaintiffs appeared to want to include that claim only to preserve it for a possible appeal. The plaintiffs did not file a reply or otherwise dispute that point.

Ruling

The court held that the plaintiffs could amend the complaint to identify the defendants previously listed as Does. It held that including the already-dismissed Monell claim was neither necessary nor appropriate, citing Ninth Circuit authority stating that a claim dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend need not be repleaded to preserve it for appeal.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. It granted the motion insofar as it sought to add the identities of the Doe defendants and denied the motion insofar as it sought to include the dismissed Monell claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint conforming to the order within seven days. Existing defendants had 14 days after filing to respond. The plaintiffs had 14 days after filing to serve the complaint on the newly named defendants, who then had 14 days after service to respond.

Effect of the Order

The order addressed what the amended complaint could contain and did not revisit the earlier dismissal of the Monell claim.