(PS) Bell v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, et al.,

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/2/21 DISMISSING without prejudice 9 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 15 Motion to Amend the Complaint, 17 Motion to file redacted documents and 21 Motion for Extension of time. Initial Scheduling Conference RESET for 9/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (JDP) before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. Plaintiffs' 22 Request regarding defendants' motion is denied as moot. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DELTHENIA BELL, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-02539-TLN-JDP (PS)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
TO FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS
ECF Nos. 15, 17
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

17

ECF No. 9

18
19

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO RESET INITIAL SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE

20

ECF No. 21

21

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
REQUEST

22
23
24

ECF No. 22
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’

25

complaint does not plead sufficiently detailed or specific factual allegations and is, therefore,

26

defective for failing to articulate a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

27

Plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, and a motion to file an

28

amended complaint, ECF No. 15. Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, and the

1

court will grant plaintiffs’ motion here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Additionally, plaintiffs seek to

2

file redacted documents in support of their second amended complaint. ECF No. 17. For good

3

cause shown, plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file redacted documents is granted. Without

4

expressing any view as to its merits, the court dismisses defendants’ motion to dismiss without

5

prejudice. Defendants are directed to either answer the new second amended complaint, ECF No.

6

16, or file a new motion as appropriate.

7

Accordingly:

8

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is dismissed without prejudice.

9

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, ECF No. 15, is granted.

10

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to file redacted documents, ECF No. 17, is granted.

11

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to reset the initial scheduling conference, ECF No. 21, is granted.

12

The initial scheduling conference is reset for September 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in

13

Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson with the filing of a joint

14

status report due seven days prior.

15

5.

16

Plaintiffs’ motion request, ECF No. 22, regarding defendants’ motion is denied as
moot.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:
20
21

June 2, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2