Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00404/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00404-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DILLMAN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00404-LJO-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX 

PARTE MOTION AND MODIFYING THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER TO ALLOW

PLAINTIFFS A 30 DAY EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE EITHER A 

STIPULATION OR A MOTION TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(Docket No. 31)

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 19, 2013, Plaintiffs Michael Dillman and Stephanie Dillman ("Plaintiffs") 

filed an ex parte application to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file their Third Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 31.) On November 21, 2013, Defendants Tuolumne County ("County") and 

Deputy David Vasquez ("Vasquez," collective "Defendants") filed an opposition. (Doc. 33.) 

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' ex parte application is GRANTED and the 

scheduling order shall be modified to extend the time by thirty (30) days to allow Plaintiffs to file 

a stipulated amended complaint or a motion to amend the complaint.

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed in the Tuolumne County Superior Court on 

February 13, 2013, and removed to this Court on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 1.) Defendants filed a 

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 5
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

motion to dismiss on March 19, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 7, 

2013. (Docs. 9, 14.) 

On May 24, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) On June 10, 

2013, County filed a motion to dismiss and Vasquez filed an answer. (Docs. 16, 17.) On July 23, 

2013, the Court granted County's motion without leave to amend as to Plaintiffs' claims arising 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and denied the motion as to the claims arising under California's Bane 

Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. (Doc. 24.) 

A scheduling conference was held on September 24, 2013, before Magistrate Judge Sheila 

K. Oberto, during which the parties addressed the issue of Plaintiffs' request to file a third 

amended complaint. (Doc. 29.) On September 30, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order that 

set forth the following requirements regarding amendments to the parties' pleadings:

The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may amend the complaint to add additional 

facts. As such, by no later than November 22, 2013, the parties shall file a 

stipulation requesting leave to amend to add those facts, and any proposed amended 

complaint shall comply with the Court's prior rulings in this action. 

Further, Plaintiffs indicated that they will be seeking to add additional defendants. 

If the parties agree to this amendment, the additional defendants shall be included 

in the stipulation amending the complaint to add the additional facts which shall be 

filed by no later than November 22, 2013. If the parties do not agree to the allow 

Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add additional defendants, any motions 

requesting leave to amend the pleadings must also be filed by no later than 

November 22, 2013. 

The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to 

amend the pleadings by November 22, 2013, does not reflect on the propriety of the 

amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All 

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).

(Doc. 30, 3:9-26.)

On November 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to extend time to file their 

third amended complaint, which Defendants opposed on November 21, 2013. (Docs. 31, 33.) 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 5
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

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs' ex parte application is essentially seeking to modify the Court's September 30, 

2013, scheduling order to allow Plaintiffs a thirty (30) day extension of time to file either an 

amended complaint or a motion to amend the complaint. Pursuant to the scheduling order, 

Plaintiffs' amended complaint or motion to amend was to have been filed by no later than 

November 22, 2013. (Doc. 30, 3:9-18.) Plaintiffs' ex parte application seeks to modify the 

scheduling order and allow an additional thirty (30) days for Plaintiffs to file their amended 

pleading or motion to amend. (Doc. 31.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that the district court must issue a 

scheduling order that limits the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)-(3). Once in place, "[a] schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The "good 

cause" requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). "The 

district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 

of the party seeking the extension." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have been diligent. Plaintiffs are seeking to amend the 

complaint to add Doe Defendants, and indicate that they believed those names would be disclosed 

by Defendants in their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. (Doc. 31, 2:21-23.) The initial 

disclosures were ordered to be completed on or before October 31, 2013, (Doc. 30, 4:3), and 

names of the Doe Defendants were not disclosed. (Doc. 31, 2:22.) Defendants indicate that such 

disclosure was not required. (Doc. 33, 8:24-25.) Plaintiffs subsequently propounded discovery to 

learn the identities of the Doe Defendants. (Doc. 31, 2:19-20.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to act diligently by waiting to propound discovery 

in this action. (Doc. 33, 4:21-5:5.) However, since this case's removal from Tuolumne County 

Superior Court on March 18, 2013, there were two motions to dismiss pending, which were not 

resolved until July 23, 2013. (Docs. 9, 16, 24.) Further, the scheduling order was not issued until 

September 30, 2013. (Doc. 30.) As such, discovery in this action did not open until that time, and 

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 5
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

4

the parties were precluded from propounding discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ("A 

party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by 

Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or 

when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.") Therefore, Plaintiffs' 

propounding of discovery requests seeking the identities of the Doe Defendants within less than 

two months of discovery being opened in this action, and less than one month after realizing that 

the Doe Defendants would not be identified in the initial disclosures, is diligent. 

The Court also considers the factors of prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith, and

futility, Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, and finds that these do not currently weigh against Plaintiff's ex 

parte application. 

As such, Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a thirty (30) day extension of time is 

GRANTED. The Court notes, however, that the Court's September 30, 2013, scheduling order did 

not find that Plaintiffs could file a third amended complaint as a matter of right. (Doc. 30, 3:8-26.) 

Instead, the scheduling order stated that the parties may file a stipulation requesting leave to 

amend the complaint to add additional facts, and that if the parties agreed to amend the complaint 

to add the additional Doe Defendants, the additional Doe Defendants should be included in the 

stipulation. (Doc. 30, 13-16.) However, if the parties did not agree to allow Plaintiffs to amend 

the complaint to add the Doe Defendants, then Plaintiffs were ordered to file a motion requesting 

leave to amend the pleadings. (Doc. 30. 3:16-18.)

Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a thirty (30) day extension of time is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs shall file either a stipulated amended complaint or a motion to amend by no later than 

December 23, 2013.1

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a thirty (30) day extension of time is GRANTED; 

and

 

1 The parties are encouraged to meet and confer and work together to attempt to resolve any disputes that arise 

regarding the amendment of the complaint. Frankly, the Court finds it perplexing that the parties were unable to reach 

a stipulation that resolved the issues raised in the instant ex parte application.

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2. Plaintiffs shall file either a stipulated amended complaint or a motion to amend by 

no later than December 23, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 5 of 5