Marlene M Pinnock v. John Doe et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO DISMISS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AS TO THE MONELL ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH FARROW IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 26 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 8/20/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MARLENE M PINNOCK,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case № 2:14-cv-05551-ODW(ASx)

v.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION

14

JOHN DOE; CHP COMMISSIONER

TO DISMISS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

15

JOSEPH FARROW; C.H.P. OFC.D.

AS TO THE MONELL

16

ANDREW #20470; C.H.P.

ALLEGATION AGAINST

17

INVESTIGATOR S. TAKETA #16454;

DEFENDANT JOSEPH FARROW IN

18

DOES 2–10,

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY [26]

19

Defendants.

20

On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff Marlene M. Pinnock and Defendant Joseph

21

Farrow filed a rather incomprehensible Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Dismissal

22

of Claims for Relief as to the Monell Allegation Against Defendant Joseph Farrow in

23

His Official Capacity. (ECF No. 26.) From what the Court can glean from the

24

document, Pinnock agreed to just excise her Monell claim from her First Amended

25

Complaint, leaving everything else intact.

26

Pinnock and Farrow indicate that they arrived at this stipulation following the

27

counsel of parties required by Local Rule 7-3. But the whole point behind Rule 7-3 is

28

for parties to resolve their disputes before seeking relief from the Court.

By

1

“stipulating” to dismissal of one claim now after several motion to dismiss and strike

2

have been filed, Pinnock and Farrow have only compounded the problems—not

3

lessened them. Pinnock should have amended her complaint to remove the Monell

4

allegations as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which would

5

have mooted Farrow’s arguments with respect to this claim.

6

But instead of subjecting counsel for all Defendants to submitting modified

7

motions after Pinnock were to file an amended complaint, the Court instead will

8

dismiss the Monell claim via Farrow’s Motion to Dismiss once the Court ultimately

9

rules upon that Motion. The Court expects Pinnock to address this Stipulation where

10

necessary in her oppositions to the pending motions.

11

The Court accordingly GRANTS the parties’ Stipulation. (ECF No. 26.) As

12

the Court stated earlier today, the parties and counsel have a duty to comply with all

13

applicable rules. The Court will expect strict compliance with Local Rule 7-3 in the

14

future and will not accommodate further procedural blunders.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

August 20, 2014

18
19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2