D.R. et al v. Contra Costa County CA et al
Filing
47
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. To the extent plaintiffs seek an extension of time to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint for purposes of amending their claims against Contra Costa Co unty and Tasha Mizel, the Administrative Motion is granted, and the deadline is extended to October 16, 2020. To the extent plaintiffs seek an order lifting the stay of plaintiffs' claims against Marcia Franich, the Administrative Motion is gran ted. To the extent plaintiffs seek leave to add claims against Marcia Franich and to add DockATot as a defendant, the Administrative Motion is denied, without prejudice to plaintiffs' filing a motion for leave to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 13, 2020. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2020)
Case 3:19-cv-07152-MMC Document 47 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
D. R., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 19-cv-07152-MMC
12
13
Before the Court is plaintiffs' Administrative Motion, filed October 5, 2020.
14
Defendants Contra Costa County and Tasha Mizel, the only defendants who have
15
appeared, have not filed a response thereto. Having read and considered the
16
Administrative Motion, the Court rules as follows:
17
1. To the extent plaintiffs seek an extension of time to file their proposed Second
18
Amended Complaint for purposes of amending their claims against Contra Costa County
19
and Tasha Mizel, as provided in the Court's order of September 15, 2020, the
20
Administrative Motion is hereby GRANTED, and the deadline is EXTENDED to October
21
16, 2020.
22
23
24
2. To the extent plaintiffs seek an order lifting the stay of plaintiffs' claims against
Marcia Franich, the Administrative Motion is hereby GRANTED.
3. To the extent plaintiffs seek leave to add claims against Marcia Franich and to
25
add DockATot as a defendant, the Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED, without
26
prejudice to plaintiffs' filing a motion for leave to file a proposed Third Amended
27
Complaint, attaching thereto such proposed amended pleading. See Civil L.R. 10-1
28
(providing “[a]ny party filing or moving to file an amended pleading must reproduce the
Case 3:19-cv-07152-MMC Document 47 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
1
entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by
2
reference”); Mayes v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc., 867 F.2d 1172, 1173 (8th Cir.
3
1989) (holding, where motion for leave to amend is filed "prior to expiration of the statute
4
of limitations," even though "the entry of the court order and the filing of the amended
5
complaint have occurred after the limitations period has expired . . . , the amended
6
complaint is deemed filed within the limitations period").
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: October 13, 2020
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
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?