Abraham Valentin et al v. Robert Jackson et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFENDANTS POSITION ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE regarding their position on (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and (2) Plaintiffs' request that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend and deem Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint filed. Defendants shall file their response t o this Order no later than Monday, February 1, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Defendants shall also reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by Friday, February 5, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. The hearing set for February 1, 2016, is hereby VACATED and rescheduled for Monday, February 8, at 1:30 p.m. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-09011-BRO (AFMx)

Title

ABRAHAM VALENTIN ET AL. V. ROBERT JACKSON ET AL.

Date

January 27, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFENDANTS’
POSITION ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pending before the Court is Robert Jackson and California Highway Patrol’s
(“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Abraham Valentin, Alejandro Francisco Peralta,
Michael Dominguez, and Frank Margarito Escobido’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No.
10.) Defendants’ Motion noticed a hearing date of February 1, 2016. (See id.) Thus,
under Central District Local Rule 7-9,1 Plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, was due no later
than January 11, 2016. On January 11, 2016, in lieu of an opposition, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.2 (Dkt. No. 12.) To date,
Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.
In Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs
state that “some of defense counsel’s arguments [in the Motion to Dismiss] may be
compelling.” (Mot. for Leave at 4.) Plaintiffs also state that “counsel for the respective

1

Local Rule 7-9 provides that a party must file an opposition no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to
the hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9.
2

The Court notes that under Central District Local Rule 6-1, a Notice of Motion must be filed with the
Clerk and served on the opposing party no later than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the date set for
hearing. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 6-1. Plaintiffs’ filed their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint on January 11, 2016 and noticed a hearing date of February 1, 2016. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion
was untimely filed with respect to the noticed hearing date.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-09011-BRO (AFMx)

Title

ABRAHAM VALENTIN ET AL. V. ROBERT JACKSON ET AL.

Date

January 27, 2016

parties have further met and conferred regarding a potential motion to dismiss
contemplated by defense,” and that “[t]he parties, through their respective counsel, have
agreed that an extension of time for the filing of a Second Amended Complaint is in the
best interest of the parties and the efficient administration of justice.” (Id.) On January
26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiffs state that “counsel have met and conferred,” and
that Defendants’ counsel “is not authorized to sign a stipulation granting [Defendants’]
motion to dismiss and agreeing that the attached SAC be filed . . . unless the allegation
that [D]efendant Jackson was acting in an official capacity is stricken.” (Suppl. at 2.)
Plaintiffs indicate they are unwilling to do so. (See id.) Finally, Plaintiffs request the
Court to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and allow Plaintiffs to file the proposed
Second Amended Complaint. (Id.)
In light of the procedural events discussed above, Defendants are ORDERED TO
SHOW CAUSE regarding their position on (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint and (2) Plaintiffs’ request that the Court grant Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend and deem Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended
Complaint filed. Defendants shall file their response to this Order no later than Monday,
February 1, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Defendants shall also reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by Friday, February 5, 2016, at 12:00 p.m.
The hearing set for February 1, 2016, is hereby VACATED and rescheduled for Monday,
February 8, at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2