Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01451-3/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 - 06-cv-1451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICA AARON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06-CV-1451-H(POR)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(2) DENYING KPMG’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AS

MOOT WITH LEAVE TO

REFILE

(3) SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE AND HEARING

DATE ON MOTIONS TO

DISMISS

vs.

MICHAEL AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (“FAC”) on September 15, 2006.

(Doc. Nos. 49 & 50.) Defendant KPMG filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on

September 25, 2006. (Doc. No. 55.) Defendant City of San Diego and the individual

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on October 10, 2006. (Doc. No. 62.)

Defendant Michael Aguirre filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on October 10, 2006.

(Doc. No. 65.) 

On October 19, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a

second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 70.) Defendant KPMG filed its

opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application on October 23, 2006. (Doc. No. 72.) 

Case 3:06-cv-01451-H-POR Document 77 Filed 10/24/06 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

- 2 - 06-cv-1451

On October 24, 2006, the Court held a telephonic hearing regarding scheduling

the various motions to dismiss. Christopher Nissen appeared for Plaintiffs, Peter

Benzian appeared for Defendant City of San Diego and the individual Defendants,

Matthew Mahoney and Reg Vitek appeared for Defendant SDCERS, Rodney Perlman

appeared for Defendant Michael Aguirre, and Martha Gooding and Stephen Cook

appeared for Defendant KPMG. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure direct that leave to amend shall be freely

given, and thus, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte

application. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ SAC is filed October 19, 2006, nunc pro tunc. In

light of Plaintiffs’ filing the SAC, the Court DENIES KPMG’s motion to dismiss the

FAC as moot with leave to refile. (Doc. No. 55.) 

As counsel represented during the telephonic hearing on October 24, 2006,

because the allegations in the SAC only differ from the FAC as to Defendant KPMG,

Defendant Aguirre, Defendant City of San Diego, and the individual Defendants

requested that the Court deem their previously filed motions to dismiss the FAC as their

opposition to the SAC. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant Aguirre’s

motion to dismiss the FAC shall be his response to the SAC. (Doc. No. 65.) Similarly,

the Court ORDERS that Defendant City of San Diego and the individual Defendants’

motion to dismiss the FAC shall be their response to the SAC. (Doc. No. 62.)

As stated in the telephonic hearing on October 24, 2006, the Court sets the

following briefing schedule and hearing date on the parties’ motions to dismiss:

1. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant Aguirre’s motion to dismiss the SAC

shall be filed on or before November 8, 2006. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ opposition to

Defendant City of San Diego and the individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC

shall be filed on or before November 8, 2006. Defendants shall file any reply to either

motion on or before November 15, 2006.

2. Defendant KPMG shall file its response to the SAC on or before

November 3, 2006. Similarly, Defendant SDCERS shall respond to the SAC on or

Case 3:06-cv-01451-H-POR Document 77 Filed 10/24/06 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

- 3 - 06-cv-1451

before November 3, 2006. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition on or before November

17, 2006. Defendants KPMG and SDCERS shall file any replies on or before

November 28, 2006.

3. The Court shall hold a hearing on the various motions to dismiss on

Monday, December 4, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. Counsel may appear by telephone, but

must notify the Court prior to the hearing. The Court VACATES the hearing on

motions to dismiss previously scheduled for November 13, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

Christopher D. Nissen

Castle Petersen and Krause

4675 MacArthur Ct., Suite 1250

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Donald H. McGrath

Office of the City Attorney

Criminal Division

1200 Third Ave., Suite 1100

San Diego, CA 92101

Rodney Perlman

Wehner and Perlman, LLP

1919 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1120

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Peter H. Benzian

Latham & Watkins

600 W. Broadway, Suite 700

San Diego, CA 92101

Reg Vitek

Matthew M. Mahoney

Seltzer Caplan McMahan Vitek

750 B Street, 2100 Symphony Towers

San Diego, CA 92101

Martha K. Gooding

Stephen Cook

Howrey Simon Arnold and White

2020 Main St., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92614

Case 3:06-cv-01451-H-POR Document 77 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3