Westfall v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION and ORDER FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/16/2021. (Kusamura, W)

1

4

ROBERT R. POWELL, SBN: 159747
POWELL & ASSOCIATES
925 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95126
T: [phone] F: [phone]
E: [e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiffs

6

10

BRADLEY J. SWINGLE, SBN: 171535
ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
A Professional Law Corporation
1207 I Street
Post Office Box 3287
Modesto, California, 95353
T: [phone] F: [phone]
E: [e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Defendants

2
3

7
8
9

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

JEREMY WESTFALL, et al.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00283-DAD-SKO

17
Plaintiffs,
18
19

STIPULATION TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER

vs.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al,

20

Defendants.

21
22

Based on the following recitals and Stipulation of the parties related to said recitals, the

23

parties hereto, by and by and through their counsel, do hereby agree and stipulate as set forth

24

below, and respectfully request this Court order same:

25

//
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation To File 2nd Am. Complaint; Order
Westfall, et al. v. County of Stanislaus, et al.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00283-DAD-SKO

RECITALS

1
2

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for

3

Violation of Civil Rights (“FAC”) in this Court. [Dkt. 7] Plaintiffs named a Defendant Jorge

4

Contreras as a County of Stanislaus Social Worker Defendant therein.

5
6
7

WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, a Waiver of the Service of Summons (AO 399) was
filed for each of the individually named Defendants except Jorge Contreras. [Dkt. 8]
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, an answer was filed on behalf of Defendant County of
Stanislaus and each of the individually named Defendants except Jorge Contreras. [Dkt. 10]

8
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2021, the Court continued the scheduling conference in
9
this matter, indicating that all parties had not yet appeared and no proof of service of the FAC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

on Defendant Jorge Contreras. The Court requested a proof of service or status report be filed
by November 15, 2021. [Dkt. 12]
WHEREAS, following further review and investigation, Plaintiffs have confirmed that
Jorge Contreras is a misnomer. Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this case against Defendant
Oscar Contreras.
WHEREAS, Defendants’ counsel have confirmed that they will be representing
Defendant Oscar Contreras in this matter.
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed the following in an effort to minimize cost and

18

effort to all parties and the Court: service of Defendant Contreras shall be deemed at time of

19

filing the Second Amended Complaint; the Answer previously filed at ECF No. 10 shall also

20

apply to the Second Amended Complaint for all Defendants; and, no further answer is

21

required.
STIPULATION

22
23
24
25

1. The parties, by and through the signatories to this Stipulation as indicated below, do
hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint in this
matter.

2
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation To File 2nd Am. Complaint; Order
Westfall, et al. v. County of Stanislaus, et al.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00283-DAD-SKO

1

2. Changes found in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall be limited to the
correction of all references to Defendant Jorge Contreras to Defendant Oscar Contreras.

2
3

3. Arata, Swingle, Van Egmond & Heitlinger will be the attorney of record for Defendant
Oscar Contreras. Mr. Contreras shall be deemed served by the ECF filing of the Amended

4

Complaint.

5
6
7

4. The Court shall issue an Amended Summons naming Defendant Oscar Contreras.
5. The Answer previously filed at ECF No. 10 shall also apply to the second amended
complaint for all Defendants. No further answer is required.

8
9
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
10
11
12

_/S/_Bradley J. Swingle__ 11/15/21
BRADLEY J. SWINGLE, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

_/S/_Robert R. Powell__ 11/15/21
ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
ORDER

13

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties (Doc. 17), and for good cause shown
14
(see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
16

1.

Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint in this matter;

2.

Changes found in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall be limited to the

17
18

correction of all references to Defendant Jorge Contreras to Defendant Oscar Contreras;
3.

Arata, Swingle, Van Egmond & Heitlinger will be the attorney of record for Defendant

19

Oscar Contreras. Mr. Contreras shall be deemed served by the ECF filing of the Amended

20

Complaint;

21

4.

The Court shall issue an Amended Summons naming Defendant Oscar Contreras; and

22

5.

The Answer previously filed at Doc. 10 shall also apply to the second amended complaint
for all Defendants. No further answer is required.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

November 16, 2021

.

3
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation To File 2nd Am. Complaint; Order
Westfall, et al. v. County of Stanislaus, et al.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00283-DAD-SKO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Stipulation To File 2nd Am. Complaint; Order
Westfall, et al. v. County of Stanislaus, et al.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00283-DAD-SKO