Marez et al v. County of Stanislus et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/15/2015 ORDERING that the 61 ex parte application is GRANTED. The proposed third amended complaint is deemed FILED. The pending 60 motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CORINA MAREZ, as Guardian ad Litem
for E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors; and
RUBY RODRIGUEZ, an individual,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

No. 1:14-CV-00662-KJM-SKO

ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
On April 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a third

19
20

amended complaint. ECF No. 61. The proposed third amended complaint deletes one claim

21

against Stanislaus County and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, in which the plaintiffs

22

alleged violations of California Government Code section 845.6, and adds a claim for violation of

23

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the same two defendants. See Proposed Third Am. Compl., ECF No.

24

61-1. These changes were spurred by the County’s and Sheriff’s Department’s pending motion

25

for summary judgment, which argues the section 845.6 claims were defective. See Mot. Summ. J.

26

4–11, ECF No. 60. Filing of the proposed third amended complaint would render this pending

27

motion moot. No party filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application.

28

/////
1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to the pleadings. Its

2

policy favors amendment, and leave to amend should normally be granted unless amendment

3

“would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in

4

futility, or creates undue delay.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th

5

Cir. 1989). Here, it appears the amendment will cause no undue prejudice, is not sought in bad

6

faith, is not futile, and will not unduly delay the proceedings. As noted above, no party opposed

7

the application. The discovery cutoff and dispositive motion deadline are currently set in 2016.

8

The ex parte application is GRANTED. The proposed third amended complaint is

9

deemed FILED. The pending motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. This order

10
11
12

resolves ECF Nos. 60 and 61.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 15, 2015.

13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2