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)

Download PDF
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?