Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-4/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CORINA MAREZ, as Guardian ad Litem 

for E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors; and 

RUBY RODRIGUEZ, an individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:14-CV-00662-KJM-SKO 

ORDER 

On April 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a third 

amended complaint. ECF No. 61. The proposed third amended complaint deletes one claim 

against Stanislaus County and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, in which the plaintiffs 

alleged violations of California Government Code section 845.6, and adds a claim for violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the same two defendants. See Proposed Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 

61-1. These changes were spurred by the County’s and Sheriff’s Department’s pending motion 

for summary judgment, which argues the section 845.6 claims were defective. See Mot. Summ. J. 

4–11, ECF No. 60. Filing of the proposed third amended complaint would render this pending 

motion moot. No party filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application. 

///// 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to the pleadings. Its 

policy favors amendment, and leave to amend should normally be granted unless amendment 

“would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in 

futility, or creates undue delay.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th 

Cir. 1989). Here, it appears the amendment will cause no undue prejudice, is not sought in bad 

faith, is not futile, and will not unduly delay the proceedings. As noted above, no party opposed 

the application. The discovery cutoff and dispositive motion deadline are currently set in 2016. 

The ex parte application is GRANTED. The proposed third amended complaint is 

deemed FILED. The pending motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. This order 

resolves ECF Nos. 60 and 61. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 15, 2015. 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2