Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00969/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00969-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRISTINA R. RAVANERA,

No. 2:06-CV-0969-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT and DOES 1 through

100,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Following a substitution of attorney, Plaintiff Cristina

Ravanera filed this Motion to Amend her Complaint on November 8,

2007, seeking to resolve technical issues with her Complaint. In

Plaintiff’s original Complaint, the first cause of action alleged

facts that would support claims for both discrimination and

retaliation. Plaintiff now seeks leave to file an amended

complaint in order to assert two distinct claims for

discrimination and retaliation. On November 11, 2007, Defendants

filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to said Motion to Amend. 

Defendants concur that the proposed amendments involve only the

form of the Complaint, and not the substance.

Case 2:06-cv-00969-MCE -EFB Document 29 Filed 12/12/07 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

Rule 15(a) provides that “leave [to amend] shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The

policy of favoring amendments to pleadings, as evinced by

Rule 15(a), “should be applied with extreme liberality.” United

States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Pretrial

Scheduling Order issued in this case requires good cause to amend

the pleadings. The proposed amendments seek to correct technical

deficiencies and not to make substantive changes. In view of

Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Motion to

Amend is hereby GRANTED.

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has already filed a Proposed

First Amended Complaint on November 8, 2007 (see Exhibit 4 to

this Motion). The proposed Amended Complaint is hereby deemed

properly filed as of the date of this Order. Defendants shall

respond in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00969-MCE -EFB Document 29 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 2