Smith et al v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 157

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 150 Stipulation to File Second Amended Complaint.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1 JAMES McMANIS (40958)
CHRISTINE PEEK (234573)
2 McMANIS FAULKNER
A Professional Corporation
3 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, California 95113
4 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
5 Email:
[e-mail]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

JOSEPHINE SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

Case No. C 11-03999 LHK

vs.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

STIPULATION

20 THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
21

1.

The parties agree that plaintiffs, JOSEPHINE SMITH and A.S., shall file their

22 Second Amended Complaint upon the Court’s execution of the order herewith. Attached as
23 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants do
24 not oppose plaintiffs’ request to file the attached Second Amended Complaint.
25

2.

The Second Amended Complaint is identical to the First Amended Complaint,

26 except that it adds plaintiff A.S. to the twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of
27 emotional distress. The only purpose of the amendment is to correct the inadvertent omission of
28 A.S. from the twelfth cause of action. All previous court orders and stipulations concerning the
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
Case No. C 11-03999 LHK

1 causes of action in the First Amended Complaint shall apply to the Second Amended Complaint,
2 once filed. In making this stipulation, no party waives the right to appeal any such court order.
3

3.

Defendants’ respective Answers to the First Amended Complaint shall be deemed

4 their Answers to the Second Amended Complaint. No further response need be filed.
5

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6
7 [In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1.i.3, Christine Peek, counsel for plaintiffs attests that
8 concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories,
9 which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on this document.]
10

DATED: February 22, 2013

McMANIS FAULKNER

11
12

/s/ Christine Peek
CHRISTINE PEEK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
15 DATED: February 22, 2013
16
17

RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE,
SERVERIAN & STOCK
________/s/ Michael C. Serverian_________
MICHAEL C. SERVERIAN

18
19

Attorneys for Defendants,
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SANTA
CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE KENNETH HENDERSON, and
SERGEANT GREG HILL

20
21
22
DATED: February 22, 2013

DAVIS & YOUNG, APLC

23
24
25
26
27
28

_______/s/ Mark E. Davis________________
MARK E. DAVIS
ADAM J. DAVIS
ERIC BENGTSON
Attorneys for Defendant,
CLAY ROJAS
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
Case No. C 11-03999 LHK

1
2

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4 Dated: February 25, 2013
THE HONORABLE LUCY KOH
United States District Judge

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
Case No. C 11-03999 LHK