Ager v. Hedgepath et al
Filing
69
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/31/2013. (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013) Modified on 1/31/2013 (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
DANIEL AGER, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, ET AL.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:11-CV-6642-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Re: Docket No. 38]
Presently before the court is Defendants Anthony Hedgepath, Belinda Hendrick, and D.
19
Spencers’ (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Daniel Ager, Elizabeth Ager, and
20
Kathryn Ager’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Complaint. The court found these
21
matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and
22
previously vacated the hearing. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23
1331. Having fully reviewed the parties’ briefing, and for the foregoing reasons, the court
24
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion
25
26
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit pursuing claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of
27
themselves and their deceased father Dr. Alan Ager. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that
28
1
Case No.: 5:11-CV-6642-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights when they failed to take reasonable steps to protect Dr. Ager
2
from an obvious risk of attack from his cellmate and Dr. Ager was ultimately strangled to death by
3
this cellmate. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
4
Dkt. No. 17. The court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendants’ motion to dismiss on
5
August 24, 2012 and granted leave to amend the complaint within the next thirty days to correct the
6
infirmities the court had identified. Dkt. No. 32. That same day, the court issued its Case
7
Management Order, which included an order “that the deadline for joinder of any additional
8
parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is October 30, 2012.” Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiffs filed a
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
First Amended Complaint on September 24, 2012, adding defendants Arlene Solis, Robert Burgh,
10
Benjamin Bloch, D. Garcia, Antonella Aluzri, and J. Martin. Dkt. No. 35. Less than two weeks
11
later, on October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Carl Warfield as an
12
additional defendant. Dkt. No. 37.
13
14
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that they understood the court’s Case Management Order as the court’s
15
granting them leave to join additional parties and further amend their pleadings. This interpretation
16
of the court’s Order is incorrect. The Case Management Order sets the schedule for an individual
17
case but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Northern District of
18
California, and this court’s Standing Orders establish the rules by which any litigation in this court
19
must proceed. Put simply, the Case Management Order governs when certain steps in the litigation
20
should occur, but the constellation of rules set forth above set forth how the litigation should
21
proceed.
22
When the time to amend a pleading as of course has passed, Federal Rule of Civil
23
Procedure 15(a)(2) requires a party to obtain written consent from the opposing party or leave of
24
court to file an amended pleading. Here, Plaintiffs’ amendment as of course period ended twenty-
25
one days after Defendants served their Motion to Dismiss, i.e., May 2, 2012. The court’s Case
26
Management Order then set the deadline for seeking any amendment of pleadings as October 20,
27
2012. Dkt. No. 33. Setting this deadline did not displace Rule 15(a)(2)’s requirement that a party
28
2
Case No.: 5:11-CV-6642-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
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?