Cicala et al v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 30

STIPULATION AND ORDER for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint re 27 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 7/10/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

Andrew V. Stearns, SBN 164849 Ignascio G. Camarena II, SBN 220582 Steven M. Berki, SBN 245426 BUSTAMANTE O'HARA & GAGLIASSO, P.C. 333 W. San Carlos St., 8th Floor, San Jose, California 95110 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] M. Jeffery Kallis, SBN 190028 THE LAW FIRM OF KALLIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 333 W. San Carlos St., 8th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] M J Kallis @Kallislaw.org Attorneys for Plaintiff s UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C09-00176 RMW) (Also to be filed in Related Case No. C08-4032 JF (PVT)
------------------ ORDER FOR LEAVE PROPOSED

STIPULATION, REQUEST, AND TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned counsel, that the plaintiffs have sufficient grounds for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", based on the following facts: 1. Plaintiffs initially filed this action on January 14, 2009;
Page 1 STIPULATION, REQUEST, AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2. of right; 3.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on February 2, 2009, as a matter

To accommodate investigation into legal and factual grounds for naming

additional defendants and an additional plaintiff, the parties stipulated to allow the defendants additional time to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint to March 4, 2009; 4. By March 4, 2009, investigation into the potential new claim(s) was

continuing and incomplete despite the diligence of the parties and therefore the parties stipulated to allow the defendants additional time to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint to April 24, 2009. 5. On April 24, 2009, the plaintiffs informed the defense that their investigation

into the potential new claim(s) was completed and have determined it is warranted to name a new plaintiff and additional defendants in this action. 6. The parties have therefore agreed that interests of judicial economy and the

preservation of judicial resources will be served by allowing the plaintiffs to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached hereto. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the defendants are not required to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint, if this Order is entered by the Court, who shall then have 20 days to respond from that date of filing of the Second Amended Complaint. If the Court does not enter this Order, all named Defendants must respond to the First Amended Complaint by May 15, 2009. So stipulated. DATED: April 29, 2009 BUSTAMANTE, O'HARA, & GAGLIASSO, P.C.

By: /S/ ANDREW V. STEARNS IGNASCIO G. CAMARENA II STEVEN M. BERKI, attorneys for Plaintiffs
Page 2 STIPULATION, REQUEST, AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DATED: April 29, 2009

THE LAW FIRM OF KALLIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By:

/S/ M. JEFFERY KALLIS, attorneys for Plaintiffs RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney

DATED: April 29, 2009

By:

/S/ CLIFFORD S. GREENBERG, Deputy City Attorney

SO ORDERED. DATED: July 10, 2009 HON. JEREMY FOGEL United States District Court, Northern District San Jose Division

Page 3 STIPULATION, REQUEST, AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT