(PS) Bell v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELTHENIA BELL, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02539-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 13 v. TO FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS 14 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY ECF Nos. 15, 17 OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’ Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE 17 ECF No. 9 18 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESET INITIAL SCHEDULING 19 CONFERENCE 20 ECF No. 21 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUEST 22 ECF No. 22 23 24 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ 25 complaint does not plead sufficiently detailed or specific factual allegations and is, therefore, 26 defective for failing to articulate a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 27 Plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, and a motion to file an 28 amended complaint, ECF No. 15. Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, and the 1 | court will grant plaintiffs’ motion here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Additionally, plaintiffs seek to 2 | file redacted documents in support of their second amended complaint. ECF No. 17. For good 3 | cause shown, plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file redacted documents is granted. Without 4 | expressing any view as to its merits, the court dismisses defendants’ motion to dismiss without 5 | prejudice. Defendants are directed to either answer the new second amended complaint, ECF No. 6 | 16, or file a new motion as appropriate. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is dismissed without prejudice. 9 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, ECF No. 15, is granted. 10 3. Plaintiffs’ motion to file redacted documents, ECF No. 17, is granted. 11 4. Plaintiffs’ motion to reset the initial scheduling conference, ECF No. 21, is granted. 12 The initial scheduling conference is reset for September 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in 13 Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson with the filing of a joint 14 status report due seven days prior. 15 5. Plaintiffs’ motion request, ECF No. 22, regarding defendants’ motion is denied as 16 moot. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ June 2, 2021 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28