Sanchez v. Andruss et al

Filing 73

***Please disregard. Entered in error.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
MINNY FRANK,

No. C 13-0089 MMC

13
Plaintiff,
14
15

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, et al.,
Defendants

16

/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND;
CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.

Before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed, respectively, on February 1,
2013, March 22, 2013, and April 2, 2013, by defendants (1) David Williams and Jennifer
Williams, (2) BHC Sierra Vista Hospital (“SVH”) and Paul Hyppolite (“Hyppolite”), and
(3) the County defendants,1 each such motion set for hearing on May 17, 2013. In her
opposition to SVH and Hyppolite’s motion, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, requests
leave to amend her complaint. (See, Opp’n, Doc. No. 44, filed Apr. 4, 2013, at 2:12-16.)
Additionally, on April 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint, noticed for
hearing on May 17, 2013, and accompanied by a proposed amended complaint in which

26
27
28

1

The “County defendants” are the County of Humboldt, the Department of Health
and Human Services, James Bragg, Christy Reihm, Katherine Young, Keri Schrock, Jery
Scardini, Asha George, Chris Starets-foote, Donna Wheeler, Angela Monson and Shelley
Nilsen.

1

she has endeavored to address various deficiencies noted by defendants in their respective

2

motions.2 Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this district, plaintiff’s motion cannot be heard

3

on a date earlier than June 7, 2013. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a) (providing motion “must be . . .

4

noticed . . . on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days

5

after service”).

6
7

In light of the above, the Court hereby SETS the following dates for plaintiff’s motion
to amend:

8

1. Defendants’ opposition(s), if any, shall be filed no later than May 17, 2013.

9

2. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than May 24, 2013.

10

3. The hearing is hereby scheduled for June 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.3

11

In the interests of judicial economy, the hearings on the pending motions to dismiss

12
13

are hereby CONTINUED to June 14, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 3, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2

25
26
27
28

Had plaintiff filed her motion earlier, she would have been entitled to amend her
complaint once as of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (providing “[a] party may amend
its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b)”).
3

Due do sequestration, all district courts in the San Francisco division will be closed
on June 7, 2013.
2