Estate of Angel Ramirez et al v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING Stipulated request that Plaintiff be GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint and that the scheduling order be modified. The proposed Second Amended Complaint filed on the docket on January 23, 2013, (Doc. 28), is DEEMED filed as of the date of this order; Plaintiffs' December 26, 2012, motion to amend (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT; The parties' non-expert discovery deadline is extended until April 1, 2013; and All other scheduling deadlines remain unchanged. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/31/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

36 W. COLORADO BLVD. SUITE 301
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105
TELEPHONE [phone]

RIOS & ASSOCIATES

11

ESTATE OF ANGEL RAMIREZ et al

CASE NO. 12-CV-0453 AWI SKO

12
Plaintiffs,

13
14

vs.

15
16 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON et al

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFF BE
GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND THAT THE SCHEDULING
ORDER BE MODIFIED
(Docs. 25, 29, 30)

17
18
19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint so

24 that additional parties, whose identities first became known to Plaintiffs during
25
discovery, could be substituted for certain Doe Defendants. (Doc. 25.) The Court
26
27 ordered Plaintiffs to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in
28

1 support of the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine
2

whether Defendants would stipulate to the amendment. (Doc. 26.)

3
On January 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a proposed SAC,1 and on January 31,

4

5 2013, the parties filed a stipulation that Plaintiffs be granted leave to file the
6

proposed SAC and that the Scheduling Order be modified to extend the non-expert

7
8

discovery deadline to April 1, 2013, to provide additional time for discovery in light

9 of the amendment to the complaint.
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties’ stipulated request that Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a

12
36 W. COLORADO BLVD. SUITE 301
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105
TELEPHONE [phone]

RIOS & ASSOCIATES

11

13

Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED;

14

2. The proposed Second Amended Complaint filed on the docket on January

15
23, 2013(Doc. 28), is DEEMED filed as of the date of this order;

16
17

3. Plaintiffs’ December 26, 2012, motion to amend (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS

18

MOOT;

19
4. The parties’ non-expert discovery deadline is extended until April 1, 2013;

20
21
22

and
///

23
24
1

The proposed SAC is filed on the docket as a “Second Amended Complaint.”
26 However, it should have been filed as a “proposed” SAC as the Court had not
approved the filing of an amended complaint and Defendants had not stipulated to
27 its filing.
28
25

-2-

5. All other scheduling deadlines remain unchanged.

1
2

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: January 31, 2013
5

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6

ie14hje

7
8
9
10

12
36 W. COLORADO BLVD. SUITE 301
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105
TELEPHONE [phone]

RIOS & ASSOCIATES

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-