The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG)
COMPANY.; R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR
12
COMPANY.; and SANTA FE ORDER (1) GRANTING
13 NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY., PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
INC., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
14
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
15 AND (2) ORDERING
v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
16
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and HELEN
17
N. ROBBINS-MEYER, in her official
(ECF No. 37)
18 capacity as the County of San Diego’s
Chief Administrative Officer,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J.
23 Reynolds Vapor Company, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.’s Unopposed
24 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37).
25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), “the court may, on just terms,
26 permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or
27 event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” The Rule “plainly
28 permits supplemental amendments to cover events happening after suit, and it follows, of
1 || course, that persons participating in these new events may be added if necessary.” Griffin
2 ||v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 226-27 (1964). Permitting or denying leave to file
3 ||a supplemental pleading or claim is left to the sound discretion of the court. Keith v. Volpe,
4 || 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988).
5 Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement their Complaint because on December 8,
6 2020, San Diego County adopted Ordinance No. 10699. Mot. at 1. When Ordinance No.
7 || 10699 becomes operative on July 1, 2021, it will repeal the current ban on “flavored
8 ||smoking products” in Ordinance No. 10647 and replace it with a ban on the sale of
9 || “flavored tobacco products.” Jd. Because of this development, Plaintiffs request leave to
10 || file a Supplemental Complaint, which adds claims that Ordinance No. 10699 is similarly
11 || preempted by federal law. Jd. Additionally, the Supplemental Complaint includes two
12 ||new Plaintiffs: American Snuff Co., LLC and Modoral Brands Inc. Jd. These companies
13 ||manufacture flavored tobacco products that were not covered by San Diego County’s
14 || original Ordinance but will be covered by the new Ordinance. Jd. Defendants do not
15 || oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id.
16 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion.
17 || Plaintiffs may file their Supplemental Complaint. Additionally, the Parties SHALL FILE
18 simultaneous briefs within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, not to
19 || exceed five (5) pages each, addressing how the Court should resolve the new claims in
20 || light of the pending motions in this action.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 ||Dated: March 4, 2021 . tt
23 pee Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28