Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00050/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00050-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

----oo0oo----

SONYA WOLF and NICHOLAS H., a

Minor, by and through his

Guardian Ad Litem ROGER CRAIG,

NO. CIV. S-06-0050 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, GERARDO

FLORES, individually and as an

employee of the County of San

Joaquin; CAROL CABRAL

individually and as an

employee of the County of San

Joaquin; MELISSA TORRES,

individually and as an

employee of the County of San

Joaquin; RONALD BROWN,

individually and as an

employee of the County of San

Joaquin; and Does 1-10

inclusive;

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The Complaint in this action contains several causes of

action against defendants based on their conduct during a child

welfare investigation at plaintiffs’ home. On July 5, 2006, this

court held that defendants were entitled to immunity under state

Case 2:06-cv-00050-WBS -KJM Document 38 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

law and accordingly dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims. 

Plaintiffs have since filed a first amended complaint in hopes of

reinstating those claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants County of San Joaquin, Gerardo

Flores, Carol Cabral, Melissa Torres, and Ronald Brown again move

to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims, arguing, inter alia,

that plaintiffs lacked the requisite permission to file an

amended complaint. 

Indeed, the court explicitly advised plaintiffs in the

scheduling order that they would need the court’s permission to

file an amended complaint. (May 22, 2006 Order (stating that

“[i]f as a result of [defendants’ then-pending motion to

dismiss], the court grants plaintiff leave to amend her

complaint, plaintiff may do so pursuant to such order”); id.

(“Other than as stated above, no further joinder of parties or

amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court,

good cause having been shown under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).”).)

Recognizing that they failed to follow these procedures

before filing their first amended complaint, plaintiffs have

filed a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss in which they implicitly concede that their proposed

first amended complaint is not yet the operative pleading in this

case. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s first amended

complaint be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN; 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims of

the first amended complaint be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as

Case 2:06-cv-00050-WBS -KJM Document 38 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 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

3

moot, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to defendants’ right to renew the motion

if plaintiffs properly notice a motion and are granted leave to

amend their complaint.

DATED: August 18, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00050-WBS -KJM Document 38 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 3