Areiqat v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION AND ORDER for leave to file amended complaint; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/4/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2010)

Areiqat v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 18

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 26 27 28

CHARLES GEERHART (SBN 139769) PAOLI & GEERHART, LLP 785 Market Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94103 [phone] Attorney for Plaintiffs HANAN AREIQAT AND HADEEL AREIQAT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANAN AREIQAT AND HADEEL AREIQAT Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; JOHN BURKE, Star # 2240, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer; VICTOR HUI, Star # 1370, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer; DAVID ALBRIGHT, star # 104, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer; JOSEPH VALDEZ, Star #4228, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer; PATRICK GRIFFIN, Star # 1835, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer; ELMER NAJARRO star # 1078, individually and in his capacity as a San Francisco police officer and DOES 130, Defendants.
Areiqat v. City/County of SF et al USDC No. C10-1113 MHP

Case No.

C10-1113 MHP

STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Plaintiffs HANAN AREIQAT AND HADEEL AREIQAT and defendants CITY AND 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JOHN BURKE, VICTOR HUI, DAVID ALBRIGHT, 3 JOSEPH VALDEZ, PATRICK GRIFFIN, and ELMER NAJARRO (hereafter, the PARTIES), 4 hereby stipulate to a Court Order as follows: 5 1. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs may dismiss David Albright, each side to bear its own fees and 6 costs; 7 2. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs may join as party defendants the following San Francisco Police 8 officers: 9 a) Josh Hinds in place and stead of DOE 1. 10 b) Kevin Rightmire in place and stead of DOE 2. 11 3. This stipulation is entered into because plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the names of 12 the officers listed in par. 2 above until undertaking discovery in this matter. 13 4. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the newly joined defendants are deemed to have notice and 14 service of the summons and complaint, that a new summons need not be issued. 15 5. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the two newly joined defendants waive notice and service of 16 the complaint as amended and shall not be required to answer the amendment, and that all denials, 17 responses and affirmative defenses contained in the answer previously filed by the original 18 defendants to the original complaint shall be deemed responsive to the complaint as to the two newly 19 joined defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Areiqat v. City/County of SF et al USDC No. C10-1113 MHP

STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

2

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 26 27 28

IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 25, 2010 PAOLI & GEERHART LLP

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/S/) within this efiled document.

/s/____________________________________ CHARLES GEERHART Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: October 25, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

/s/____________________________________ BLAKE LOEBS Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHN BURKE, VICTOR HUI, DAVID ALBRIGHT, JOSEPH VALDEZ, PATRICK GRIFFIN, and ELMER NAJARRO

Areiqat v. City/County of SF et al USDC No. C10-1113 MHP

STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

3

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 26 27 28

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS The Court has reviewed the Stipulation of the parties for an Order Dismissing and Joining Certain Defendants. Good cause appearing, the Court approves the stipulation and orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs may dismiss David Albright, each side to bear its own fees and costs; 2. Plaintiffs may join as party defendants the following San Francisco Police officers: a) Josh Hinds in place and stead of DOE 1. b) Kevin Rightmire in place and stead of DOE 2. 3. The newly joined defendants listed in No. 2 above are deemed to have notice and service of the summons and complaint. A new summons need not be issued. The two newly joined defendants shall not be required to answer the amendment. All denials, responses and affirmative defenses contained in the answer previously filed by the original defendants to the original complaint shall be deemed responsive to the complaint as to the two newly joined defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/4/2010

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

_______________________________

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

Areiqat v. City/County of SF et al USDC No. C10-1113 MHP

STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING AND JOINING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

4

A

C

LI

FO

U.S. District Court Judge l H. Pate Marilyn Judge

R NIA

E Hon. MarilynORDPatel IS SO Hall IT

RED

RT U O

NO

RT

H