Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500-9/pdf.json

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

---

STIP. & (PROP.) ORD. FOR FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

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

T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319)

HELM LAW OFFICE, PC

644 40th Street, Suite 305

Oakland, California 94609

T: (510) 350-7517

F: (510) 350-7359

email: kennedy@helmlawoffice.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad 

litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, 

individually and as co-successor in interest to 

Decedent Francisco Ponce, Jr.; F.G., a minor, 

by and through her guardian ad litem Johana 

Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as 

co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco 

Ponce, Jr.; individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; and

DOES 1–50, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 48 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 4
STIP. & (PROP.) ORD. FOR FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 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

Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G., both minors, by and through their guardian ad litem Johana 

Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco Ponce 

Jr. (“Plaintiffs”); Defendants Wellpath, LLC, Andrew P. Ho, M.D., and Alla Liberstein, M.D. 

(“Wellpath Defendants”); and Defendants County of Tulare, Jose Sanchez Perez, James Dillon, 

and Rodrigo DeOchoa; all by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate 

as follows:

RECITALS

1. Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 19), “[a]ll proposed amendments 

must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires 

any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment 

is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad 

faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

2. As to (A), the good-cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the inquiry is why the 

moving party seeks to modify the complaint. Id. Here, Plaintiffs seek to amend their First 

Amended Complaint to address the Wellpath Defendants’ claimed deficiencies so as to avoid the 

filing of a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have diligently met and conferred with the Wellpath 

Defendants regarding these matters, which has necessitated extensions of the Wellpath 

Defendants’ deadline to file a responsive pleading. See ECF Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45. 

3. As a result of these meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiffs have agreed to file a proposed

Second Amended Complaint which: (1) clarifies that the conditions-of-confinement Fourteenth 

Amendment claim at ¶ 62 is directed not at the Wellpath Defendants; and (2) does not contain a 

Monell claim against Defendant Wellpath, LLC. In exchange, the Wellpath Defendants will file 

an answer to Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint.

4. Plaintiffs and the Wellpath Defendants furthers stipulate that the Wellpath Defendants 

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 48 Filed 05/06/24 Page 2 of 4
STIP. & (PROP.) ORD. FOR FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 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

will not use the lack of a Monell claim against Wellpath, LLC to object to Plaintiffs’ discovery

requests of Wellpath, LLC’s policies or procedures. 

5. Plaintiffs and the Wellpath Defendants further stipulate that Plaintiffs may amend their

complaint to reassert a Monell claim against Defendant Wellpath, LLC, should discovery provide 

grounds to do so. See Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., No. 214CV00046KJMCKD, 2016 

WL 3126108, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (“Allowing parties to amend based on information 

obtained through discovery is common and well established.”) (citations omitted). 

6. As to (B), the Parties stipulate that Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint

satisfies the five factors from Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962): (1) there is no undue 

prejudice to the opposing party; (2) there has been no undue delay; (3) there is no bad faith or 

dilatory motive by the movants, Plaintiffs; (4) there have been no repeated failures to cure 

deficiencies by amendment; and (5) amendment is not futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

STIPULATION

Given the foregoing, the Parties stipulate that Plaintiffs may file the proposed Second

Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. For the Court’s convenience, a redline 

version is attached as Exhibit 2. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: May 1, 2024 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC

/s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 

By: T. KENNEDY HELM, IV

Attorney for Plaintiffs A.G. and F.G.

Dated: May 1, 2024 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 48 Filed 05/06/24 Page 3 of 4
STIP. & (PROP.) ORD. FOR FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.G., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO 3

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

/s/ Lindsey M. Romano*

By: LINDSEY M. ROMANO

Attorneys for Wellpath Defendants

Dated: May 1, 2024 LEBEAU THELEN LLP

 /s/ Gary L. Logan* 

 By: GARY L. LOGAN

 Attorneys for Tulare County Defendants

*Ms. Romano and Mr. Logan provided their consent that this document be filed by CM/ECF.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Parties’ stipulation, rules as follows: IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, attached to the 

Parties’ stipulation as Exhibit 1, by no later than May 10, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 48 Filed 05/06/24 Page 4 of 4