Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02226/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02226-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA JETTE,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-2226 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND AND MOTION TO FILE

GEORGE MCQUEEN, et al., THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, as well as defendant’s

motion for leave to file a third party complaint and motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to join an indispensable party, came on for hearing before this court on March 1,

2006. Plaintiff Rita Jette appeared through her counsel, Seth L. Goldstein and Maureen M.

Bryan. Neither defendant George McQueen nor Michael Friel appeared at the hearing. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for

leave to file a first amended complaint, GRANTS defendant’s motion for leave to file a third

party complaint, and DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to join an

indispensable party, for the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized as follows.

1. Having shown good cause for the filing of a first amended complaint, plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED, and plaintiff is

instructed to file a first amended complaint no later than March 8, 2006.

2. Under the liberal pleading principles espoused by the Ninth Circuit, defendant

is GRANTED leave to file its third party complaint. Discovery will proceed

with respect to defendant’s third party complaint concurrently with the

Case 4:05-cv-02226-PJH Document 51 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

underlying case, although the court will consider at a later case management

conference whether trial on the third party complaint will be bifurcated from

the underlying complaint. 

3. Although plaintiff’s first amended complaint has not yet been filed, plaintiff’s

counsel has assured the court that such complaint will (as argued in plaintiff’s

opposition) proceed only on individual claims held by plaintiff against

defendants in connection with defendant’s alleged malpractice and breach of

relevant duties. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint for failure to join an indispensable party is DENIED.

With respect to defendant’s request that the court take judicial notice of several court

documents and/or pleadings filed in the state court probate action, the court GRANTS the

request, since all proper subjects for judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence

201. Finally, with respect to plaintiff’s administrative motion requesting an extension of time

in which to file two supporting declarations in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss

(which was not filed until February 8, 2006), the court GRANTS the motion retroactively

with respect to the Jette declaration in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, and

DENIES the motion with respect to the proposed Lake County Counsel declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02226-PJH Document 51 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2