Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00655-1/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

30

31

32

1

STIPULATION RE CITY DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE; ORDER

Leon v. County of Sacramento; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

1010 F Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6911

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ROBERTO LEON LEON, OLIVIA LEON

CAZARES BRAVO, MONICA LEON, and 

EMILY NOEMI LEON

JAMES SANCHEZ, City Attorney (SBN 116356)

SEAN D. RICHMOND, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 210138)

srichmond@cityofsacramento.org

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

915 I Street, Room 4010

Sacramento, CA 95814-2608

Telephone: (916) 808-5346

Telecopier: (916) 808-7455

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF SACRAMENTO and

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ROBERTO LEON LEON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD

STIPULATION RE CITY DEFENDANTS’ 

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE;

ORDER

 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Roberto Leon Leon, Olivia Leon Cazares Bravo, 

Monica Leon, and Emily Noemi Leon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the First Amended Complaint, see 

ECF No. 14, their currently-operable pleading in this matter;

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2016, and May 5, 2016, Defendants City of Sacramento and Sacramento 

Police Department’s (collectively, “City Defendants”) filed separate Answers to the First Amended 

Complaint, see ECF Nos. 19 & 20;

Case 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 4
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

30

31

32

2

STIPULATION RE CITY DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE; ORDER

Leon v. County of Sacramento; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike allegations from City 

Defendants’ Answers to the First Amended Complaint, set for hearing on June 30, 2016, see ECF No. 22;

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016, City Defendants filed a First Amended Answer to the First 

Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 31;

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs informed City Defendants that the filing of the First 

Amended Answer was not in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see ECF No. 32-1 at 

3-4;

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2016, City Defendants filed a motion to amend their original Answers to 

the First Amended Complaint, set for hearing on July 28, 2016, see ECF No. 32;

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to strike 

from June 30, 2016, to July 28, 2016, see ECF No. 33; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel is unavailable on July 28, 2016, see ECF No. 5.

Accordingly, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that:

1. City Defendants’ First Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 31, 

be recognized as City Defendants’ currently-operable responsive pleading to the First Amended 

Complaint, superseding and replacing City Defendants’ previously-filed Answers, ECF Nos. 19 & 20;

2. City Defendants’ First Amended Complaint to the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 

31, constitutes City Defendants’ one amendment “as a matter of course” and any further amendment by 

City Defendants may be accomplished “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 

leave,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the original Answers, ECF No. 22, be withdrawn, and its 

continued hearing date of July 28, 2016, be removed from the Court’s calendar;

4. City Defendants’ motion to amend answer, ECF No. 32, be withdrawn, and its associated 

hearing date of July 28, 2016, be removed from the Court’s calendar;

5. Plaintiffs may file a motion to strike allegations from City Defendants’ First Amended 

Answer on or before July 11, 2016, with an associated hearing date of August 25, 2016;

6. City Defendants may file a opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, if any, on or before 

August 11, 2016; and

Case 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 4
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

30

31

32

3

STIPULATION RE CITY DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE; ORDER

Leon v. County of Sacramento; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD

7. Plaintiffs may file a reply to City Defendants’ opposition to the motion to strike, if any, on 

or before August 18, 2016.

Dated: June 27, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Mark E. Merin

By: __________________________________

Mark E. Merin 

Paul H. Masuhara 

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

1010 F Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ROBERTO LEON LEON, OLIVIA LEON

CAZARES BRAVO, MONICA LEON, and

EMILY NOEMI LEON

Dated: June 27, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Sean D. Richmond

(as authorized on June 27, 2016)

By: __________________________________

Sean D. Richmond

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

915 I Street, Room 4010

Sacramento, California 95814-2608

Attorney for Defendants

CITY OF SACRAMENTO and

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ORDER

Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ and City Defendants’ stipulation (ECF No. 34) and good cause appearing:

1. City Defendants’ First Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 31, is

recognized as City Defendants’ currently-operable responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint, 

superseding and replacing City Defendants’ previously-filed Answers, ECF Nos. 19 & 20;

2. City Defendants’ First Amended Complaint to the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 

31, constitutes City Defendants’ one amendment “as a matter of course” and any further amendment by 

City Defendants may be accomplished “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 

leave,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);

Case 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 4
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

30

31

32

4

STIPULATION RE CITY DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE; ORDER

Leon v. County of Sacramento; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the original Answers, ECF No. 22, is withdrawn, and its 

continued hearing date of July 28, 2016, is removed from the Court’s calendar;

4. City Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer, ECF No. 32, is withdrawn, and its associated 

hearing date of July 28, 2016, is removed from this Court’s calendar;

5. Plaintiffs may file a motion to strike allegations from City Defendants’ First Amended 

Answer on or before July 11, 2016, with an associated hearing date of August 25, 2016;

6. City Defendants may file a opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, if any, on or before 

August 11, 2016; and

7. Plaintiffs may file a reply to City Defendants’ opposition to the motion to strike, if any, on 

or before August 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00655-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 4