Spitzer et al v. Aljoe et al

Filing 85

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing re: Motion for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/10/2015. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THOMAS A. SPITZER, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05442-MEJ

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
9
10

TRISHA A. ALJOE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended

14

Complaint. Dkt. No. 72. The City Defendants oppose the motion on futility grounds, arguing

15

among other things that Plaintiffs’ proposed claims against Officer Martinez and Sergeant Leong

16

are time-barred by the statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 76 at 8 & n.3. Specifically, the City

17

Defendants indicate that the claims against Officer Martinez and Sergeant Leong accrued on

18

November 7, 2011, and thus, even assuming Plaintiffs could relate those claims back to the time of

19

the filing of their initial Complaint on November 22, 2013, those claims were barred by

20

California’s two year statute of limitations, which ran on November 7, 2013. Id. at 8 & n.3; see

21

also Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (because

22

Section 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations, federal courts apply the forum state’s

23

statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two year statute of

24

limitations for personal injury actions in California).

25
26
27
28

The Court requires supplemental briefing from Plaintiffs and the City Defendants to
address the following:
1) What allegations from Plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint or Second
Amended Complaint indicate that the claims against Officer Martinez and Sergeant

1

Leong accrued on November 7, 2011 or are otherwise timely?

2

2) Whether the statutory filing deadline for the claims against Officer Martinez and

3

Sergeant Leong is subject to any defense, such as waiver or equitable tolling.

4

The City Defendants and Plaintiffs shall each have 5 pages, double-spaced to respond to the

5

questions above. Plaintiffs’ response is due by March 17, 2015, and the City Defendants’

6

response is due by March 24, 2015.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: March 10, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2