Pulido v. City of El Segundo

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Pulido leave to amend his complaint to add a California Civil Code section 3342 strict-liability claim without stating a justification. It also held that the district court erred in dismissing Pulido’s negligence claim for failure to designate an expert, concluding that expert testimony was not required at that stage in the dog-bite case. The court reversed and remanded, and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot.

Holdings

1. The district court abused its discretion by denying Pulido leave to amend his complaint to add a California Civil Code section 3342 strict-liability claim without explicitly providing a justifying reason.
2. California law did not require Pulido to designate an expert witness to pursue his negligence claim arising from the alleged conduct of a police-trained dog.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Pulido leave to amend his complaint to add a California Civil Code section 3342 strict-liability claim without providing a justifying reason.
2. Whether California law required Pulido to designate an expert witness to pursue negligence claims arising from the conduct of a police-trained dog.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded