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)

Download PDF
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

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?