NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CINDY HUNG, deceased; et al., No. 12-16257
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04990-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES and
GLENBOROUGH 400 ECR, LLC, a
California limited liability company,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Li Ching Chu and Robert Ching Liang Hung, individually and as successors
in interest to decedent Cindy Hung (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appeal the district
court’s grant of Defendants’ Tribal Technologies, Inc. (“Tribal”) and Glenborough
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
400 ECR, LLC’s (“Glenborough”) motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for
leave to amend their complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The district court’s March 27, 2012 order denied Plaintiffs’ first motion for
leave to file an amended complaint because Plaintiffs had named three Doe
defendants. Plaintiffs’ subsequent second proposed amended complaint, dated
April 15, 2012, eliminated all Doe defendants as parties. Nonetheless, the court
denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend because “Plaintiffs ha[d] removed all
references to Doe defendants and replaced them with the term ‘Agents.’” The
April 15, 2012 complaint, however, does not refer to a party as “Agent” or by any
other fictitious name. The only two defendants listed in the title of the April 15,
2012 complaint are Tribal and Glenborough. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring
that “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties”). Although Plaintiffs
refer to “agents” and “employees” in the text of the complaint, it was error for the
district court to construe these references as substitutes for “Doe” defendants. We
therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their second proposed amended complaint.
-2-
Because the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ action, it did not rule on
Glenborough’s outstanding request to stay the case pending resolution of
Plaintiffs’ related state court case. On remand, the court should do so.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
-3-