Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY GARDNER, Case No. 18-cv-07784-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RECONSIDERING RULING

v. GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant.

Previously the Court granted Gardner’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to assert a POBRA claim. Dkt. No. 51. The City argued that amendment would be futile because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and because Gardner did not adequately allege a POBRA violation in any event. The Court granted the motion for leave to amend with the understanding that the City would be able to assert its arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the merits at summary judgment, which was imminent. Even then, it was a close question whether to grant Gardner’s motion to amend. The motion was filed very late in the case, and there were serious questions about whether Gardner had been diligent. However, at the time, both parties seemed to agree that the POBRA claim would not meaningfully expand the litigation. Now, at summary judgment, several additional concerns have arisen and caused the Court to…