Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CORINA MAREZ, as Guardian ad Litem 

for E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors; and 

RUBY RODRIGUEZ, an individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:14-CV-00662-KJM-SKO 

ORDER 

On July 7, 2015, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a fourth 

amended complaint. ECF No. 67. The proposed fourth amended complaint would add an 

additional defendant, Dr. Charles Edwards, to the second and third claims for violations of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and medical negligence. See Proposed Fourth Am. Compl., Ex. A, ECF No. 67-2. 

Plaintiffs learned of the proposed new defendant’s identity through a June 23, 2015 discovery 

response. ECF No. 67-1 at 3. In their third amended complaint, plaintiffs noted the existence of 

Doe medical professional defendants they intended to add upon discovering their identity. Third 

Am. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 61-1. Plaintiffs seek amendment on an ex parte basis and not through 

a noticed motion because of the imminent deadline for seeking amendment, July 10, 2015. ECF 

No. 67-1 at 2. Defendants did not respond to plaintiffs’ request for a stipulation. Id. No party 

has filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application. 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 68 Filed 07/14/15 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to the pleadings. Its 

policy favors amendment, and leave to amend should normally be granted unless amendment 

“would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in 

futility, or creates undue delay.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th 

Cir. 1989). Here, it appears the amendment will cause no undue prejudice, is not sought in bad 

faith, is not futile, and will not unduly delay the proceedings. As noted above, no party opposed 

the application. The discovery cutoff and dispositive motion deadline are set in 2016. 

The ex parte application is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to FILE 

the proposed fourth amended complaint at ECF 67-2 on the court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 14, 2015. 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 68 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 2