Bair v. Snohomish County

[4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ) CHERYL BAIR, ) 8 ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00998-BJR Plaintiff ) 9 ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 Vv. ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 || SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., ) ) 12 ) Defendants, ) 13 |J[) [14] 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 16 No. 22. Through her motion, Plaintiff seeks to add previously undetermined defendants and two 17 ||new causes of action one for Equal Protection and one for negligence. Defendants do not oppose 18 || the motion as far as it seeks to add new defendants or a cause of action for Equal Protection. Dkt. 19 |/No. 24. Defendants do object to the addition of a state law negligence claim arguing that it is futile [20] as Plaintiff failed to file a claim for damages before initiating suit, as required by RCW § 4.96. Id. [21] at As Plaintiff has now filed such a form, Defendants contend that the proper course is for [22] 74 her to voluntarily dismiss the current action and refile. Jd. at 6-7. Plaintiff responds both that 24 § 4.96 applies only to state tort claims, and is thus inapplicable to her federal-based claims 25 ||here alleged, and that forcing her to refile or file a separate negligence action is impractical. Dkt. No. 26. [1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that courts should “freely give leave [to amend 3 || pleadings] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed 4 || that this rule is to be applied with “‘extreme liberality” in favor of granting amendments. United 5 |] States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Arnold, 283 6 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960)); see also Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th [7] Cir, 2018). [8] 9 The parties dispute the efficacy of Plaintiffs efforts to comply with RCW § 4.96. 10 Resolution of this issue is best reserved for a motion to dismiss with attendant briefing. 11 The Court is unpersuaded that the delay in adding the new claims contained in Plaintiffs 12 || Second Amended Complaint prejudices Defendants. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File [14] Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. [15] wt, 16 DATED this Lg day of i bs , 2019. 17 > 18 Le BARBARA J} HSTEIN 19 UNITED STA/ES DISTRICT JUDGE