Farley v. Silva, et al.
Filing
14
ORDER DENYING 10 , 12 Motions to Dismiss; ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint; ORDER VACATING the July 14, 2011, and July 29, 2011, Hearings on these Motions; and ORDERS Plaintiff to File and Serve Her Second Amended Complaint No Later Than June 27, 2011, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/23/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BONNIE FARLEY,
12
13
14
15
16
CASE NO. CV-F-11-708 LJO GSA
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS (Doc. 10, 12) and PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc.
13)
vs.
CITY OF LIVINGSTON POLICE OFFICER
ROBERT SILVA, CITY OF LIVINGSTON
POLICE DEPARTMENT UNNAMED
EMPLOYEES 1 THROUGH 20, UNNAMED
COUNTY OF MERCED EMPLOYEES,
et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
/
INTRODUCTION
21
Plaintiff Bonnie Farley (“Ms. Farley”), proceeding on her first amended complaint (“FAC”),
22
asserts a single cause of action against all defendants pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.
23
1983. City of Livingston Police Department (“Police Department”) moves to dismiss the Police
24
Department as a defendant, arguing that Ms. Farley has failed to include allegations to satisfy the
25
requirements set forth in Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Monell”). In response,
26
Ms. Farley clarifies that she has not named the Police Department as a defendant in the FAC. In a
27
separate motion, Ms. Farley seeks leave to amend her FAC. This Court finds these motions suitable for
28
a decision without a hearing and VACATES the July 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011 hearings on these
1
1
motions, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the following reasons, this Court DENIES the Police
2
Department’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Ms. Farley’s unopposed motion for leave to amend her
3
FAC. Ms. Farley shall file and serve her SAC no later than June 27, 2011.
4
MOTION TO DISMISS
5
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the sufficiency of the
6
pleadings set forth in the complaint. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either
7
a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
8
theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a motion
9
to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts as true the allegations of the complaint,
10
construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolves all
11
doubts in the pleader's favor. Lazy Y. Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).
12
The Police Department correctly asserts that to state a claim against a public entity, a plaintiff
13
must include allegations to satisfy Monell. Ms. Farley’s FAC, however, does not name the Police
14
Department as a defendant. In response to a previous motion to dismiss, Ms. Farley amended her
15
original complaint to address a Monell challenge. Ms. Farley’s FAC names “City of Livingston Police
16
Department Unnamed Employees 1 Through 20" as defendants. Because Ms. Farley asserts no claim
17
against the Police Department, no case or controversy exists between the Police Department and Ms.
18
Farley. In addition, because Ms. Farley asserts no claim against a public entity, she is not required to
19
include allegations in her FAC to satisfy Monell. For these reasons, the Police Department’s Fed. R.
20
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is DENIED.
21
22
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
23
Ms. Farley’s FAC asserts a cause of action against Livingston Police Officer Robert Silva,
24
unnamed Livingston Police Department employees, and Unnamed County of Merced Employees. Ms.
25
Farley now seeks leave to amend her complaint to include unnamed City of Merced police officers as
26
defendants. Ms. Farley bases her request on information she received through discovery in this action.
27
Ms. Farley further declares that this motion for leave to amend is unopposed.
28
“After a party has amended a pleading as a matter of course, it may only amend further after
2
1
obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
2
316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of prejudice or delay, and when “justice so
3
requires,” leave to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 is granted freely. Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank,
4
607 F.2d 824 (9th cir. 1979). Because there is no demonstrated delay or prejudice to defendants, this
5
Court GRANTS Ms. Farley’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.
6
7
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
8
For the foregoing reasons, this Court:
9
1.
DENIES Livingston Police Department’s motion to dismiss (Docs. 10, 12);
10
2.
GRANTS Ms. Farley’s motion for leave to amend;
11
3.
VACATES the July 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011 hearings on these motions; and
12
3.
ORDERS Ms. Farley to file and serve her second amended complaint no later than June
13
27, 2011.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
b9ed48
June 23, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
