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)

Download PDF
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: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 5 Email: 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

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?