Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVETTE SANDERS, individually )

and as guardian ad litem for )

the estate of Michael L. )

Sanders, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00469-AWI-SMS

ORDER REFLECTING DUE DATES FOR

FURTHER BRIEFING

Defendant City’s Supplemental

Brief: November 13, 2006

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief:

November 20,2006

ORDER DEEMING MOTION TO AMEND TO

BE SUBMITTED UPON THE COURT’S

RECEIPT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint came on regularly

for hearing on October 27, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7

before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate

Judge. Waukeen McCoy and Janie Davenport appeared telephonically

on behalf of Plaintiff; Bruce B. Johnson appeared on behalf of

Defendant County; Bruce D. Praet appeared telephonically on

behalf of Defendants City and Dyer; and Chris Patton appeared

telephonically on behalf of Defendant Taser. After argument, the

Court granted Defendants City and Dyer until no later than

November 13, 2006, to submit additional briefing with respect to

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 73 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the California Tort Claims Act as applied to the claims against

the individual defendants sought to be named in the proposed

third amended complaint. The Court permitted Plaintiff to submit

a brief in reply no later than November 20, 2006. Upon receipt of

the reply brief, the motion to amend will be deemed submitted to

the Court.

The Court further suggested that Plaintiff’s counsel

consider modifications to the proposed third amended complaint

that would cause the language to be consistent with Judge Ishii’s

order dismissing some parts of of the fifth negligence claim

without leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 73 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2