Case 2:20-cv-01174-RAJ Document 42 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

Jessica Benton, Shelby Bryant, Anne Marie
Cavanaugh, and Alyssa Garrison,

No. 2:20-CV-01174-RAJ

12
Plaintiff,
13

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

vs.
14
City of Seattle,
15
Defendant
16
Plaintiffs, through counsel J. Talitha Hazelton, move for leave to amend their complaint in the form
17
attached, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 15 and Local Rule (LCR) 15. Additionally,
18
Plaintiffs move to drop Plaintiff Thomas from this suit, pursuant to FRCP 21 and LCR 21.
19
FACTS
20

One month has passed since this Court submitted an order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for

21
Reconsideration for TRO. Dkt. # 27. In this time, SPD has continued to brutalize protestors and misuse
22
crowd control weapons on predominantly non-violent protestors. Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend to
23

include recent factual allegations regarding SPD’s consistent violence and the City of Seattle’s inability to

24
end this behavior.
25
LAW
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 1

SMITH LAW, LLC
4301 NE 4th St.
PO Box 2767 Renton, WA 98059
sade@thesmithlaw.com
Tel: (206) 715-4248
Fax: (206) 900-2664

 Case 2:20-cv-01174-RAJ Document 42 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 2

1

FRCP 15(a)(2) allows for the amendment of pleadings with leave of the court, or with opposing

2

counsel’s written consent, before trial. FRCP 15(a)(2). The rule further provides, “The court should freely

3

give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Because the rule instructs that leave to amend pleadings should be

4

“freely” given, the standard of review is liberal. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the rule “should be

5

interpreted with ‘extreme liberality,’” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). A

6

district court only has discretion to deny leave to amend “due to repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

7

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

8

amendment, and futility of amendment.” Smith v. Constellation Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 991450, at *2 (9th

9

Cir. Feb 21, 2018).

10

In the present case, Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint for the first time in an effort to include

11

all of the relevant facts as they have developed over the summer. As a matter of judicial economy and

12

convenience, it is appropriate for all facts to be included before the upcoming jury trial.

13

FRCP 21 and LCR 21 allow for parties to be “dropped or added by order of the court on motion of

14

any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” LCR 21. Plaintiffs

15

therefore seek remove Plaintiff Clare Thomas as a party from this suit. The remaining plaintiffs will

16

continue with the case.

17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to amend the original Complaint in
the above-captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted this September 29, 2020.

21
22
23
24
25
26

/s/ J. Talitha Hazelton
J. Talitha Hazelton, WSBA No.
52460
4301 NE 4th St. PO BOX 2767
Renton, WA 98058
talitha@thesmithlaw.com
sade@thesmithlaw.com
Tel: (206) 715-4248
Fax: (206) 900-2664
Attorney for Defendant

27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 2

SMITH LAW, LLC
4301 NE 4th St.
PO Box 2767 Renton, WA 98059
sade@thesmithlaw.com
Tel: (206) 715-4248
Fax: (206) 900-2664