Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miller v. Ceres Unified School District, 1:15-cv-00029-TLN-BAM. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160222697 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2)] TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Comes now the Plaintiff, JACK MILLER, through his Attorney, DANIEL MALAKAUSKAS, and defendants, CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCOTT SIEGEL, LINDA STUBBS, and SHAWNA NUNEZ ("District Defendants"), through their attorney, STEPHANIE WU, submit the following joint stipulation and request that the Court grant plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2)]

Comes now the Plaintiff, JACK MILLER, through his Attorney, DANIEL MALAKAUSKAS, and defendants, CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCOTT SIEGEL, LINDA STUBBS, and SHAWNA NUNEZ ("District Defendants"), through their attorney, STEPHANIE WU, submit the following joint stipulation and request that the Court grant plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 6th 2015 in the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division.

2. On February 27th, 2015, District Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

3. On March 19th, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

4. On April 4th, 2015, District Defendants filed their second motion to dismiss.

5. On May 21sst, 2015, Plaintiff, Jack Miller, filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.

6. On May 28th, 2015, District Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss.

7. On October 28th, 2015 the court denied District Defendants motion to dismiss.

8. During the whole time that Plaintiff and District Defendants had being dealing with the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff had co-defendant, MICHAEL PHIPPS, served with process. However, an individual called on behalf of MICHAEL PHIPPS, and stated that MICHAEL PHIPPS had died, on, or around, March 22nd, 2015. The individual further stated that his wife, KIMBERLY PHIPPS currently owns, or is in charge of administering the real property subject to this litigation. This information was verified by an Affidavit of Trustee filed by KIMBERLY PHIPPS on August 11th, 2015 in Stanislaus County. Therefore, Plaintiff desired to seek leave to amend the complaint to add KIMBERLY PHIPPS. However, given the pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff desired to wait until he had an order on such motion, so as Plaintiff could make all potential amendments at once.

9. On, or around, November 30th, 2015, Plaintiff asked District Defendants if they would stipulate to allow Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. District Defendants agreed.

10. On December 7th, 2015, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.

11. On December 8th, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.

12. On December 14th, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint.

13. On January 5th, 2016, District Defendants filed their Answer.

14. On January 25th, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion a Strike against Defendants' Affirmative Defenses.

15. On January 28th, 2016, Plaintiff and the District Defendants filed a Joint Rule 26 Report.

16. Since the Summons was issued for the Second Amended Complaint from the Court on December 16th, 2015, Plaintiff has been diligently trying to serve Kimberly Phipps.

17. During the course of investigating matters relating to the service of Kimberly Phipps, Plaintiff's attorney realized that the Golf Course was managed by the corporation, RIVER OAKS GOLF COURSE, INCORPORATED. Plaintiff therefore desires to add such Defendant. In addition, Plaintiff desires to modify KIMBERLY PHIPPS name to KIMBERLY LYNN-WALTON PHIPPS.

19. Plaintiff, therefore asked the answering Defendants if they would stipulate to Plaintiff amending the Complaint. District Defendants, through their attorney, STEPHANIE WU, agreed.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court grant plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in this action, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Good Cause appearing thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted leave to file the Third Amended Complaint, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer