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