Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01016/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01016-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, a minor, BRIANA FREDRANIQUE

ANNETTE JACKSON, a minor, and SHAWN

YVETTE MARTIN, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER,

individually and in his official capacity as Chief of

Police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department,

G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 275),

C. SMITH, individually and as an officer of the City

of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 285),

P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Bade # 291),

WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually and as

an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department

(Badge # 274), and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

In this civil rights action, plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, the extant pleading, contains twelve claims against five

police officers, the chief of police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department, and the City of

Pittsburg. Defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted in part and denied in

part in an order filed on June 8, 2010. Nine of plaintiffs’ twelve claims survived, including

battery and false imprisonment. Prior to the June 8 order, but after defendants had moved for

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 173 Filed 07/08/10 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

summary judgment, plaintiffs noticed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint.

Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint does not attempt to add any new claims

or parties, and includes all of the same allegations that were set out in the original complaint. 

According to a declaration filed by plaintiff’s counsel, Panos Lagos, the second amended

complaint seeks only to correct the “benign negligence” of Attorney Lagos, who omitted

plaintiff Ashley Jackson from the battery and false imprisonment claims originally pled. 

Defendants stipulated to the filing of the second amended complaint and asked that the answer

to the first amended complaint be deemed the answer to the second amended complaint. At the

pretrial conference held on July 7, 2010, the undersigned granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend

and indicated that the amendment would be incorporated into the final pretrial order. 

The motion to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED and the current answer will

be deemed the answer thereto. The incorporation of the proposed second amended complaint

into the final pretrial order shall not be construed as permitting the reassertion of any claims

that have been dropped or dismissed since the proposed second amended complaint was written. 

No further motions for summary judgment regarding the second amended complaint will be

permitted. Since the proposed second amended complaint will be incorporated into the final

pretrial order, it need not be filed separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 173 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2