Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 CASE No. 2:10-cv-00506-MCE-KJN

1

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIEU THI TRUONG; 

PHUONG LAN TRUONG; DET VAN TRUONG; 

TON VAN TRUONG; and BIEU VAN TRUONG, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 15(a)(2), the parties to this action, through their 

counsel of record set forth below, hereby stipulate that plaintiffs may file a 

Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is for the 

purpose of naming DOE defendant No. 4, an alleged direct participant in certain 

claims in plaintiffs’ Complaint and First Amended Complaint. The identity of 

DOE No. 4, Sacramento County Officer CRAIG YONKER was unknown to 

Abraham N. Goldman, SBN 102080

David Springfield, SBN 226630 

ABRAHAM N. GOLDMAN 

& ASSOCIATES, LTD. 

12896 Rices Crossing Road / P.O. Box 120 

Oregon House, California 95962 

Tel: (530) 692-2267 

Fax: (530) 692-2543 

e-mail: agoldman@succeed.net

LIEU THI TRUONG; PHUONG LAN 

TRUONG; DET VAN TRUONG; 

TON VAN TRUONG; and BIEU VAN 

TRUONG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al. 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE No. 2:10-cv-00506-MCE-KJN

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(F.R.C.P Rule 15(a)(2) 

Complaint filed: March 2, 2010 

First Amended Complaint: 5/12/10 

)

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 20 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 CASE No. 2:10-cv-00506-MCE-KJN

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

counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants at the time the Complaint and First 

Amended Complaint were filed. The underlying allegations involving DOE No. 

4 were previously referred to in the First Amended Complaint in paragraphs 23-

27 and other operative paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint. 

No additional substantive allegations are being made in the Second 

Amended Complaint other than to identify this one unidentified defendant 

previously named as DOE No. 4. 

Dated: July 15, 2010 ABRAHAM GOLDMAN & ASSOCIATES LTD. 

 By: /s/ Abraham N. Goldman

 ABRAHAM N. GOLDMAN 

 David Springfield, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 LISA V. TRUONG, 

 PHUONG TRUONG, PEI TRUONG, 

 TON TRUONG and BIEJ TRUONG 

Dated: July 15, 2010 LONGYEAR, O’DEA, & LAVRA, LLP 

 By: /s/ Van Longyear

 VAN LONGYEAR, Attorney for defendants 

 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

 also sued erroneously as SACRAMENTO 

 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

 

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, and F.R.C.P. Rule 15(a)(2), plaintiffs 

are hereby given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint as enumerated 

above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2010

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 20 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2