Nishimoto v. County of San Diego, 3:16-cv-01974-BEN-JMA. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180618710
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; and (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ANNE BRANTMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . On June 14, 2018, Plaintiffs' filed the instant motion to amend, which requests permission to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). (Docket No. 49.) The proposed TAC substitutes four Doe defendants, whose identities Plaintiffs indicate they have only recently learned. (Mot. at pp. 2-3.) Also pending before the C
Summary: ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; and (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ANNE BRANTMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . On June 14, 2018, Plaintiffs' filed the instant motion to amend, which requests permission to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). (Docket No. 49.) The proposed TAC substitutes four Doe defendants, whose identities Plaintiffs indicate they have only recently learned. (Mot. at pp. 2-3.) Also pending before the Co..
More
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; and
(2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ANNE BRANTMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
On June 14, 2018, Plaintiffs' filed the instant motion to amend, which requests permission to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). (Docket No. 49.) The proposed TAC substitutes four Doe defendants, whose identities Plaintiffs indicate they have only recently learned. (Mot. at pp. 2-3.)
Also pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss the operative Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Anne Brantman. (Docket No. 42.) On June 15, 2018, the Court contacted counsel for Defendant Brantman by telephone to inquire whether Defendant Brantman intended to file an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend. Attorney Michelle L. Buxton represented Defendant Brantman would not be filing an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
The Court finds the interests of justice requires granting Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is GRANTED. Because the TAC, once filed, will supersede the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Brantman's motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint within three (3) days of the date of this Order. It is expected that Plaintiffs will serve the newly named defendants expeditiously.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
