Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00644-3/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT BROWN TO FILE 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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

29

David S. McLane (124952)

dmclane@kmbllaw.com

Lindsay Battles (262862)

lbattles@kmbllaw.com

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

975 East Green Street

Pasadena CA 91106

Telephone: (626) 844-7660

Facsimile: (626) 844-7670

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARLA BADAY, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KINGS, GEORGANNE 

GREENE, ADVENTIST HEALTH 

HANFORD, JOSHUA R. SPEER, JEFF J. 

TORRES, JAMES GREGORY LEWIS, 

DEAN MORROW, DANIEL BROWN, 

AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00644-NONE-SKO

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT DANIEL BROWN TO FILE 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ 

STIPULATED REQUEST

(Doc. 30)

Case 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 4
1

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

29

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Defendant Daniel Brown (“Brown”) and Plaintiff Karla 

Baday stipulate to extend the time for Defendant Brown to file an Answer to the Complaint in 

this action. This request is for an extension of time of more than 30 days. Defendant Brown has 

not requested nor been granted any prior extensions of time to file a responsive pleading.

Defendant Daniel Brown was personally served with the complaint in this action on June 

11, 2020. The deadline for Defendant to file a responsive pleading expired on July 2, 2020.

On or about October 8, 2020, Defendant Brown, who is currently not represented by 

counsel, contacted counsel for Plaintiff and advised that he had been attempting to contact the 

malpractice group that provided coverage to him for the dates outlined in the Complaint and 

requested a 30 day extension of time to file an answer, through November 9, 2020. On October 

9, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff responded to Defendant Brown’s email advising that a stipulation 

and proposed order would be required and inquiring as to when Defendant Brown expected to 

retain counsel. Defendant Brown responded on October 15, 2020, stating that he was still in the 

process of trying to retain counsel and that he intended to file an Answer.

The procedural posture of the case will not be affected by allowing Defendant Brown the 

requested extension of time to file an Answer to the Complaint. The scheduling conference in 

this case is scheduled for December 29, 2020, with reports due December 22, 2020. Currently 

pending before the Court are Defendants Adventist Health Hanford and Georganne Greene’s 

motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6).

The parties hereby stipulate to extend the time for Defendant Brown to file an Answer to 

the Complaint to November 9, 2020

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 

DATED: October 19, 2020 By: / s / David S. McLane

David S. McLane

By: / s / Lindsay Battles

Lindsay Battles

Attorneys for Plaintiff Karla Baday

Case 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 4
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

29

DATED: October 19, 2020 By: / s / Daniel Brown, DO

Daniel Brown, DO

Defendant, In Pro Per

ORDER

The parties’ above stipulation requests an extension of time for Defendant Daniel Brown 

to file an answer to the Complaint in this action, with which he was served on June 11, 2020 (see 

Doc. 11). The stipulation, however, fails to mention that a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

(Doc. 23) was filed, with the Court’s leave (see Doc. 22), on September 3, 2020. 

As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders 

the latter inoperative. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010). It also 

appears that Defendant Brown was not served with the FAC, as the docket does not reflect any 

proof of service. (See Doc. 23.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), a 

response to an amended pleading is to “be made within the time remaining to respond to the 

original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file on the Court’s docket proof of 

service of the FAC upon Defendant Brown by no later than October 26, 2020. Defendant 

Brown’s responsive pleading is to be filed within 14 days of service of the FAC. The parties’ 

stipulated request for an extension of time is otherwise DENIED as moot.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The parties are advised that any future requests for extensions of time should be made before the expiration of the 

deadline. Post hoc requests will be viewed with disfavor.

Case 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 4
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

29

Case 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 31 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 4