Jackson et al v. City Of Pittsburg et al

Filing 173

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge William Alsup [granting 110 Motion to Amend/Correct ; Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2010)

Download PDF
Jackson et al v. City Of Pittsburg et al Doc. 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE JACKSON, a minor, BRIANA FREDRANIQUE ANNETTE JACKSON, a minor, and SHAWN YVETTE MARTIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department, G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 275), C. SMITH, individually and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 285), P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Bade # 291), WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 274), and DOES 1100, inclusive, Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 09-01016 WHA In this civil rights action, plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, the extant pleading, contains twelve claims against five police officers, the chief of police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department, and the City of Pittsburg. Defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted in part and denied in part in an order filed on June 8, 2010. Nine of plaintiffs' twelve claims survived, including battery and false imprisonment. Prior to the June 8 order, but after defendants had moved for Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 summary judgment, plaintiffs noticed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint does not attempt to add any new claims or parties, and includes all of the same allegations that were set out in the original complaint. According to a declaration filed by plaintiff's counsel, Panos Lagos, the second amended complaint seeks only to correct the "benign negligence" of Attorney Lagos, who omitted plaintiff Ashley Jackson from the battery and false imprisonment claims originally pled. Defendants stipulated to the filing of the second amended complaint and asked that the answer to the first amended complaint be deemed the answer to the second amended complaint. At the pretrial conference held on July 7, 2010, the undersigned granted plaintiffs' motion to amend and indicated that the amendment would be incorporated into the final pretrial order. The motion to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED and the current answer will be deemed the answer thereto. The incorporation of the proposed second amended complaint into the final pretrial order shall not be construed as permitting the reassertion of any claims that have been dropped or dismissed since the proposed second amended complaint was written. No further motions for summary judgment regarding the second amended complaint will be permitted. Since the proposed second amended complaint will be incorporated into the final pretrial order, it need not be filed separately. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?