1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VALTER JUNIO FERREIRA-DIAS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00335-EMC

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. MOTION TO AMEND

10 MIGUEL CASTILLO, et al., Docket No. 47 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Plaintiffs are Valter Junio Ferreira-Dias and his family. They have filed suit against two 15 Richmond police officers, Sgt. Miguel Castillo and Sgt. Christopher Llamas, alleging that Mr. 16 Ferreira-Dias’s rights were violated when he was falsely arrested as a result of Defendants’ 17 actions. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The parties have 18 waived a hearing on the matter, and the Court agrees that no hearing is necessary. Having 19 considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS 20 Plaintiffs’ motion. 21 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 In their original complaint, Plaintiffs allege as follows. Mr. Ferreira-Dias was falsely 23 arrested for robberies of two GameStop stores, one in Pleasant Hill and the other in Richmond. 24 The robberies took place in January 2019. Witnesses to the robberies provided the police with 25 almost identical license plate numbers for the getaway cars (only one digit was different). This led 26 the police to believe that the robberies were committed by the same people. 27 When the Richmond police ran the license plate number taken down in conjunction with 1 Nova. Defendants subsequently visited Mr. Villa-Nova and learned that he had reported the 2 license plate as stolen back several months earlier in November 2018. Defendants showed Mr. 3 Villa-Nova an image of one of the suspects pulled from the Richmond GameStop’s surveillance 4 footage. Mr. Villa-Nova stated that the suspect looked like his mechanic – Mr. Ferreira-Dias – but 5 noted that he did not meet Mr. Ferreira-Dias until December 2018, i.e., after the license plate had 6 already been stolen. “Based solely on this non-witness identification of [Mr.] Villa-Nova’s 7 mechanic, [Defendants] immediately focused their investigation exclusively on [Mr. Ferreira- 8 Dias].” Compl. ¶ 44. 9 Evidence did not support Mr. Ferreira-Dias being the suspect. For example, the physical 10 description of the suspect given by the witnesses did not match Mr. Ferreira-Dias’s appearance 11 (e.g., Mr. Ferreira-Dias was at least four inches shorter and was not heavy set). In addition, 12 Defendants did not conduct an inadequate investigation. They did not, for instance, interview Mr. 13 Ferreira-Dias. Nor did Defendants present a photo lineup to the GameStop witnesses even though 14 the witnesses reported that they could identify the perpetrator(s). And notably, the Pleasant Hill 15 police did do a photo lineup for the Pleasant Hill GameStop employees, and they did not identify 16 Mr. Ferreira-Dias. 17 Sgt. Castillo ultimately prepared an affidavit in support of an arrest and search warrant. In 18 the affidavit, Sgt. Castillo made misrepresentations and omitted material facts. For example, he 19 misrepresented that a witness had identified Mr. Ferreira-Dias specifically as the perpetrator. 20 Also, he omitted from the warrant application any explanation for why he did not conduct a photo 21 lineup using the Facebook photo that Mr. Villa-Nova had shown him. (Sgt. Castillo claimed he 22 did not run a photo lineup with Mr. Ferreira-Dias’s DMV photo on the basis that it was not up to 23 date – e.g., Mr. Ferreira had gained weight, was not wearing glasses, and was clean shaven.) The 24 warrants were issued and the police executed them on January 17, 2019. Mr. Ferreira-Dias was 25 arrested at his shop in San Bruno, and his family home was ransacked. 26 In the days and weeks after the arrest and search, Mr. Ferreira-Dias’s attorney collected a 27 large amount of exculpatory evidence. Based on this evidence, the D.A.’s Office did not proceed 1 pursuant to California Penal Code § 851.8(a). 2 Based on the above and other allegations, Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of 3 action: 4 (1) Fabrication of evidence in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 (2) False arrest in violation of § 1983. 6 (3) Denial of meaningful access to the courts in violation of § 1983. 7 (4) Unreasonable search in violation of § 1983. 8 (5) Malicious prosecution in violation of § 1983. 9 (6) Unreasonable taking and withholding of property in violation of § 1983. 10 (7) Denial of familial association in violation of § 1983. 11 In the present motion, Plaintiffs seek to file an amended complaint. The substantive 12 changes proposed by Plaintiffs are as follows: (1) Plaintiffs wish to add four individual 13 defendants, i.e., Sgt. Decious, Det. Thomas, Det. Diaz, and Det. Ramos (in the original complaint, 14 Plaintiffs named Doe Defendants), and (2) Plaintiffs wish to modify the fourth cause of action 15 (and factual allegations in support) to allege a warrantless search. 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It provides that a 18 “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 19 Factors that a court considers in determining whether to give leave to amend include “undue delay, 20 the movant's bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 21 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility. Of [these] factors, 22 prejudice to the opposing party carries the most weight.” Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 23 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020). 24 In the instant case, Defendants oppose amendment on the basis of futility and prejudice. 25 Neither argument is persuasive. 26 As to futility, Defendants argue that it does not make any sense to add the four additional 27 police officers (one of whom no longer works for the Richmond police) because, even if Sgt. 1 Castillo failed to procure a search warrant as claimed by Plaintiffs,1 the four officers were entitled 2 to rely on the representation made to them that a search warrant had been obtained – or at least 3 they would have the benefit qualified immunity. But, as Plaintiffs points out in their reply brief, 4 they have alleged in their proposed amended complaint, that Sgt. Castillo (along with Sgt. Llamas) 5 executed the arrest warrant at Mr. Ferreira-Dias’s place of work while the other four police 6 officers went to search the family home without a warrant. See Prop. FAC ¶ 79. If the four 7 officers searched the family home without a warrant in hand, they could be held liable and might 8 not be protected by qualified immunity. Cf. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 563 (2004) (“It is 9 incumbent on the officer executing a search warrant to ensure the search is lawfully authorized 10 and lawfully conducted. Because petitioner did not have in his possession a warrant particularly 11 describing the things he intended to seize, proceeding with the search was clearly ‘unreasonable’ 12 under the Fourth Amendment.”). 13 As to prejudice, Defendants argue that, if amendment is allowed, more work will need to 14 be done – e.g., a determination will need to be made as to whether the four officers need counsel, 15 there will need to be an investigation into each officer’s conduct, more discovery will need to be 16 taken, and more motion practice is likely (which will add to defense costs). But this is not the 17 kind of prejudice that Rule 15 contemplates. The question is whether this work can be done 18 within the case management schedule set by the Court, and Defendants have not argued that this is 19 not possible. Nor does it appear, as a facial matter, that the work cannot be completed within that 20 schedule, particularly because the search was already within the parameters of the original 21 complaint and, if anything, it will be Plaintiffs that need to take more discovery rather than any 22 defendant. To the extent Defendants argue that they have litigated the case and made strategic 23 decisions based on the original complaint as pled, that is true in any given case. Defendants 24 cannot rest on that conclusory assertion but rather must show with some specificity how the 25 proposed amendment would be prejudicial. They have failed to do so. 26 27 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is granted. Plaintiffs shall immediately file the 3 first amended complaint attached to their motion (Docket No. 47-2). 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 47. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: April 18, 2022 9 10 ______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27