The Estate of Paul Browning v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
2:20-cv-01381
D. Nev.May 10, 2023Background:
- Paul Browning was exonerated in 2020 after spending over 30 years on Nevada's death row; he filed a civil-rights complaint July 24, 2020.
- Browning died March 23, 2021; the Estate was substituted and a first amended complaint was filed June 29, 2021.
- Discovery closed October 5, 2022; LVMPD defendants moved for summary judgment January 6, 2023.
- On March 1, 2023 the Estate moved for leave to amend to add claims under the Nevada Constitution based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Mack v. Williams (2022).
- Defendants opposed as untimely and futile; plaintiff argued diligence and that Mack created a newly recognized right of action.
- The court found plaintiff acted in good faith and with diligence, minimized prejudice to defendants, declined to decide futility now, granted leave to amend, and set deadlines for the amended complaint and scheduling proposals.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Rule 16(b) good-cause | Sought leave promptly after Mack; Mack created a new viable state claim | Motion is untimely because scheduling/discovery deadlines passed and no earlier amendment sought | Court: Good cause exists — plaintiff was diligent after Mack; grant leave |
| Bad faith / undue delay | Amendment prompted by change in law, not gamesmanship | Plaintiff could have pled state claims earlier | Court: No bad faith; targeted pleading earlier was reasonable |
| Prejudice to defendants | New claims mirror federal claims; facts unchanged, so minimal prejudice | Defendants already filed dispositive motion; burden of added claims | Court: Some prejudice exists but is slight and manageable given overlap |
| Futility of amendment | Mack supports a state-law right of action; merits better addressed later | Argues proposed state claims are futile | Court: Declined to resolve futility now; leave to amend will allow usual merits-stage motions |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.) (scheduling-order cutoff can bar untimely amendments)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.) (Rule 16(b) good-cause standard focuses on diligence)
- Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.) (factors for leave to amend: bad faith, delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments)
- Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534 (N.D. Cal.) (courts usually defer merits-based futility rulings until after amendment)
- In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal.) (preference to defer sufficiency challenges until appropriate motions)
- Mack v. Williams, 522 P.3d 434 (Nev. 2022) (Nevada Supreme Court recognized an implied right of action for money damages under the Nevada Constitution)