McCarthy v. County of Contra Costa

Filing 81

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LELAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [denying 76 Motion to Amend/Correct]. Plaintiff to file revised complaint by 6/6/2018. Defendant to respond by 6/20/2018. Plaintiff's reply due by 6/27/2018. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2018 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup.(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TIMOTHY MCCARTHY III, an individual,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. C 16-06782 WHA

v.
RYAN MONTOYA, individually and in his
capacity as a Deputy Sheriff for the Contra
Costa County Sheriff’s Department,

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendant.
/
The Court has read the proposed amended complaint and finds it confusing and

18

ambiguous. One point of confusion is whether plaintiff merely “presumably warned” (Third

19

Amd. Compl. ¶ 8) versus actually “alerted defendant Montoya” (Id. at ¶6). Further, does

20

“alerted” mean expressly told? Plaintiff was there and should know. A second point of

21

confusion is that Hacker is now listed as “Cornbread,” but in the past was “Cornfed.”

22

Which one was it? Additionally, the sequence of events in paragraphs six through nine are

23

not in chronological order and jump back and forth between events on October 21 and

24

October 22, making it impossible to understand what plaintiff told Montoya and when (since

25

it appears that there were two interchanges between plaintiff and Montoya).

26

The Court will give plaintiff one last final opportunity to fix these problems as well as

27

problems identified by defendant. The Court is not suggesting that if these ambiguities and

28

points of confusion are fixed the pleading will fly. The Court is only saying it is impossible to

1

evaluate the proposed pleading because of its form. A revised complaint is due one week

2

from today on June 6, 2018. Defendant will then have two weeks, until June 20, to file a

3

response. Plaintiff will then have one week, until June 27 to reply. The hearing date is

4

vacated, the new hearing date is JULY 5, 2018, AT 8:00 A.M. The pending motion is DENIED

5

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

to file a new motion.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: May 30, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2