Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05296/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05296-9/pdf.json

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

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHALIE THUY VAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-5296 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFNATHALIE

VAN’S MOTION TO AMEND THE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SETTING A

DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE A

MOTION TO DISMISS

On July 20, 2010, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on Plaintiff Nathalie Van’s Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Because

Plaintiff had not filed a proposed amended complaint with her motion, the court set a deadline for

her to do so, as well as deadlines for Defendant to object to any of the amendments and for Plaintiff

to respond. Plaintiff has now filed her proposed amended complaint, Defendant has filed its

objections and Plaintiff has responded. Based on the proposed amendments, and the briefs and

arguments submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint is GRANTED. 

At a minimum Plaintiff has shown good cause for amending the complaint to remove the claims of

her minor son, in light of the fact there is no longer any attorney representing him. Plaintiff’s son’s

claims are deemed dismissed without prejudice to him asserting his claims either after retaining

counsel, or after he reaches the age of majority when he will be legally competent to represent

himself.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file a motion to dismiss, or an answer, no

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 94 Filed 08/24/10 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

ORDER, page 2

later than September 21, 2010. The above order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is

without prejudice to Defendant raising in a motion to dismiss the issues regarding timeliness that it

asserted in its objection to the amended complaint.

Dated: 8/24/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 94 Filed 08/24/10 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

ORDER, page 3

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’ s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies handed to Plaintiff Van on 8/24/10 to:

Nathalie Thuy Van

1037 N. Abbott Avenue

Milpitas, CA 95035

 /s/ Donna Kirchner 

 DONNA KIRCHNER

 Judicial Law Clerk

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 94 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 3