Dao v. Seattle Public Schools
2:23-cv-01341
W.D. Wash.May 13, 2024Background:
- Tho V. Dao, initially self-represented, filed suit after receiving an EEOC Right to Sue Letter, alleging tort and discrimination claims (WLAD) against Seattle Public Schools and individual defendants.
- Dao was unaware he first needed to file a state tort claim notice under RCW 4.96.020 before pursuing tort claims against a public entity.
- After hiring counsel, Dao filed the required tort claim and then moved to amend the complaint to remove the defective claims while waiting to satisfy statutory requirements.
- The court granted Dao's prior motion to amend the complaint to remove, and now let him reassert, the tort and WLAD claims once statutory prerequisites were satisfied.
- Defendants opposed the second motion to amend and requested fees and costs, arguing prejudice and unnecessary expenses.
- The court reviewed the motion under the liberal amendment standards of Rule 15(a)(2) and applicable Ninth Circuit precedent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint again to reassert tort and WLAD claims | Dao complied with statutory notice requirements and is within the statute of limitations; amendment is justified | Amendment is prejudicial, causes expense, and represents undue delay | Leave to amend granted—no prejudice or undue delay shown |
| Whether defendants are entitled to fees and costs for responding to the motions to amend | Fees are not warranted; actions were necessary to cure procedural defect | Defendants incurred considerable, unnecessary expense responding to two amendment motions | Fees and costs denied—expenses could have been avoided by parties’ cooperation |
Key Cases Cited
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 464 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (explains liberal standard for granting leave to amend under Rule 15)
- Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999) (reiterates leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (outlines factors for granting leave to amend, including bad faith, undue delay, and prejudice)
- Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) (nonmovant bears the burden to show why amendment should not be granted)
- Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart, 803 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1986) (leave to amend should be liberally granted; inferences in favor of moving party)