Michael James De Luca et al v. City of Port Hueneme et al, No. 2:2014cv02680 - Document 46 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND and ORDERS Plaintiffs to dismiss the separate action against the officers 34 ; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 30 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc). Modified on 12/17/2014 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Michael James De Luca et al v. City of Port Hueneme et al Doc. 46 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Central District of California 9 10 11 Case 2:14-cv-02680-ODW(JCx) 12 MICHAEL JAMES De LUCA, 13 individually and as successor in interest to 14 the deceased; VINCENT PETER De ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 15 LUCA, individually and as successor in MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 16 interest to the deceased, [34] AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S 17 18 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON v. THE PLEADINGS [30] 19 CITY OF PORT HUENEME; DOES 1-10, 20 inclusive, 21 22 23 Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION This case arises from the fatal shooting of Michael DeLuca by two police 24 officers in the City of Port Hueneme Police Department. 25 successors in interest, the decedent’s children, Michael James DeLuca and Vincent 26 Peter DeLuca, filed suit against the City of Port Hueneme. Plaintiffs filed a Motion 27 for Leave to Amend the Complaint to add the officers who shot the decedent and 28 Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading. (ECF Nos. 34, 30.) For the Individually and as Dockets.Justia.com 1 reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend 2 and DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 1 (Id.) II. 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4 On September 6, 2013, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Defendant DOE Officers, 5 now known to be officers Robin Matlock and Christopher Graham, observed Michael 6 DeLuca in his vehicle parked in a parking lot at Hueneme Beach Park. (Compl. ¶ 27.) 7 Plaintiffs allege that the officers approached the vehicle and, without provocation or 8 justification, fired a number of shots, fatally wounding DeLuca. (Id. ¶ 28.) 9 After being shot, DeLuca was immobile, bleeding profusely, and in critical 10 need of emergency medical care. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs allege that the officers did not 11 timely summon medical care or allow medical personnel to treat DeLuca. 12 Plaintiffs further allege that the delay in medical care caused DeLuca extreme physical 13 and emotional pain and suffering, and was a contributing cause to his death. (Id. 14 ¶ 30.) (Id.) 15 Plaintiffs allege that the use of deadly force against DeLuca was excessive and 16 objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, particularly because DeLuca did 17 not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to anyone at the time of 18 the shooting. (Id. ¶ 31.) 19 On April 9, 2014, DeLuca’s children, Michael James DeLuca and Vincent Peter 20 DeLuca filed the instant action, individually and as successors in interest, against the 21 City of Port Hueneme. (Id. ¶ 1.) The officers were not named defendants. (Id.) 22 Plaintiffs are the decedent’s successors in interest as defined in § 377.11 of the 23 California Code of Civil Procedure and succeed his interest in this action as his 24 biological children. (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs allege five separate violations of 42 U.S.C. § 25 1983, false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, and negligence. (Id.) 26 /// 27 28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 2 1 On September 22, 2013, the officers who shot Deluca were deposed. (Partow 2 Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs prepared a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to add the 3 officers before the officers’ depositions but waited to file. (Mot. 3.) Strategically, 4 Plaintiffs decided to depose the officers as non-parties so they could not attend each 5 other’s depositions, and Plaintiffs could obtain testimony uninfluenced by the other 6 officer. (Id.) 7 On September 23, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel began trial before this Court in the 8 matter of Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles. (Mot. 3.) Due to counsel’s participation 9 in that trial and other matters immediately following, counsel inadvertently forgot to 10 file the Motion for Leave to Amend until after receipt of Defendant’s Motion for 11 Judgment on the Pleadings. (Id.) Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order, the last date 12 13 to amend pleadings or add parties was October 6, 2014. (ECF No. 14.) 14 On October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a separate action naming officers Matlock 15 and Graham as Defendants. (Case No. 2:14-cv-08473, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs will 16 consider dismissing that case, which is assigned to this Court and based on the same 17 facts, should the Court give leave to amend. (Mot. 1.) III. 18 19 A. LEGAL STANDARD Motion for Leave to Amend 20 Leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so requires.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But a court may deny leave when “the court determines that 22 the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly 23 cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 24 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts should freely grant leave to 26 amend absent special circumstances, such as: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory 27 motive on the part of the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies with 28 3 1 previous amendment; (4) prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) futility of 2 amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 3 B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 4 A motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to a Rule 5 12(b) motion to dismiss; the only major difference is that a Rule 12(c) motion is 6 properly brought “after the pleadings are closed and within such time as not to delay 7 the trial.” Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Prods., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1106–07 8 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th 9 Cir. 1989)). The allegations of the nonmoving party are accepted as true, denials of 10 these allegations by the moving party are assumed to be false, and all inferences 11 reasonably drawn from those facts must be construed in favor of the responding party. 12 Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 13 1989). But conclusory allegations and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to 14 defeat a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 15 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996). A court should grant judgment on the pleadings when, even 16 if all material facts in the pleading under attack are true, the moving party is entitled to 17 judgment as a matter of law. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1550. 18 IV. 19 A. DISCUSSION Motion for Leave to Amend 20 Courts should freely grant leave to amend absent special circumstances, such as 21 undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (1962). In 22 the instant action, the Court finds that there are no special circumstances and judicial 23 economy warrants granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. 24 Defendant contends that there is undue delay because Plaintiffs knew the names 25 of the officers who shot and killed the decedent before the instant action was filed. 26 (Opp’n 15.) The Court is not persuaded that there is undue delay that justifies denial 27 of leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ counsel strategically did not name the officers in the 28 original Complaint to prevent them from influencing each other’s depositions, and 4 1 then became preoccupied with trial in another matter and forgot to file the instant 2 Motion. Defendant provided the Court with the timeline of filings but failed to 3 demonstrate that opposing counsel’s explanations for the delay do not constitute good 4 cause. 5 Defendant also contends that there is prejudice to the defense. According to 6 Defendant, if the officers are added, “the City will be required to work at superhuman 7 speed” to respond to the Complaint and draft a motion for summary judgment. 8 (Opp’n 16-17.) The Court will not force Defendant to work at an unreasonable pace; 9 however, it will not waste judicial resources and force Plaintiffs to simultaneously 10 litigate a separate case involving the same issues against the officers before this Court. 11 Finding that there are no special circumstances and judicial economy warrants 12 granting leave, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, and 13 ORDERS Plaintiffs to dismiss the separate action against officers Matlock and 14 Graham. The Court will modify the Scheduling Order upon request to prevent any 15 prejudice to Defendant. 16 B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 17 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings hinges on the City of Port 18 Hueneme being the only named defendant. Defendant argues that the Court does not 19 have federal jurisdiction and the three supplemental claims against the City of Port 20 Hueneme should be dismissed because there is “no named defendant in any federal 21 cause of action.” (Mot. 4.) 22 Defendant filed the instant Motion before Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 23 Amend. The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is moot because officers Matlock 24 and Graham will be added as defendants. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 V. 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for 3 Leave to Amend, ORDERS Plaintiffs to dismiss the separate action against the 4 officers, and DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as moot. 5 (ECF Nos. 34, 30.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 December 17, 2014 9 10 11 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
