Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rowe v. Clark County School District

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 7, 2017

MICHAEL ROWE, Plaintiff(s),
v.
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Michael Rowe's (“plaintiff”) renewed motion for leave to amend his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 113). Defendant Clark County Education Association (“CCEA”) filed a response (ECF No. 114), as did defendant Clark County School District (“CCSD”) (ECF No. 115). Plaintiff did not file corresponding replies.

         Also before the court are the motions for summary judgment, submitted by CCSD, CCSDPD, and CCEA. (ECF Nos. 76, 77). Plaintiff filed responses to those motions (ECF Nos. 81, 92), and defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 85, 95).

         I. Facts

         On April 28, 2017, the court denied plaintiff's countermotion to amend his first amended complaint.[1] See (ECF No. 110).

         In the same order, the court granted CCEA's motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part CCSD and CCSDPD's motion to dismiss, and dismissed CCSDPD from the case. See (id.). In addition, the court gave plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of the order to file a renewed motion to amend his complaint if he wished. Id.

         Thereafter, on May 26, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking leave to amend his first amended complaint and filed his proposed second amended complaint[2] (“proposed amended complaint”) adding various defendants and claims.[3] (ECF No. 113).

         In plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, plaintiff seeks to add five (5) new defendants and exclude Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and CCSDPD, in accordance with the court's previous orders (ECF Nos. 60, 63, 110). (ECF No. 113). The five proposed additional defendants are: Nevada State Education Association (“NSEA”), Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, The Law Office of Alexis Brown Law, Esq., The Law Office of Robert Spretnak, Esq., and The Law Office of Daniel Marks, Adam Levine, Esq. (ECF No. 113-1).

         Further, plaintiff alleges the following fifteen (15) causes of action in his proposed amended complaint: (1) intentional tort against all defendants; (2) a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241 against all defendants; (3) a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 against all defendants; (4) breach of contract by wrongful termination against CCSD; (5) negligence against CCEA, CCSD, Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, and NSEA; (6) breach of contract against CCEA and NSEA; (7) unlawful dissemination/obtention/use of records of criminal history against Robert Spretnak, CCEA, CCSD, and Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm; (8) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States and Nevada Constitutions against Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, CCEA, NSEA, and CCSD; (9) deprivation of his rights under the color of law against all defendants; (10) obstruction of justice against all defendants; (11) legal misconduct against Adam Levine, Robert Spretnak, Alexis Brown, Dyer and Lawrence Law Firm, CCEA, and CCSD; (12) conflict of interest against all defendants; (13) infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (14) punitive damages against all defendants; and (15) gross negligence against all defendants.[4] (ECF No. 113-1 at 18-31).

         Thereafter, on June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed another motion seeking leave to amend his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 117). However, plaintiff's most recent motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 117) does not comply with the court's previous order.[5] See (ECF No. 110 at 10). Additionally, plaintiff's new motion lacks a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the new motion for leave to amend.

         In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's most recent motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 117) will be stricken. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “courts have inherent power to control their dockets[, which] includes the power to strike items from the docket.”).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Moreover, “[a] district court determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Indeed, “this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Id. The Supreme Court has interpreted rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Court explained:

         In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Id. at 182.

         Furthermore, “[a]s [the Ninth C]ircuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.