Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 11 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (ECF Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 95) 13 Defendants. SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 Following the adoption of findings and recommendations on Defendants’ motion to 17 dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 85.) On 18 October 4, 2023, a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants 19 Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N, was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 41(a), signed by only Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, 21 Inc., Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. (ECF No. 88.) 22 Because the stipulation requested dismissal of fewer than all claims asserted against 23 Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N., the Court found Rule 15, not 24 Rule 41, was the proper vehicle. (ECF No. 90). See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 25 Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held 26 that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims 27 against a given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 th 1 single claim from a multi-claim complaint”). Rule 15 provides that “a party may amend its 2 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Therefore, on 3 October 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County Sheriff- 4 Coroner Margaret Mims, Correctional Lieutenant Jami Carter, Sergeant Chris Garcia, and 5 Officers Frank Ponce, Moises Franco, Meng Cha, Linda Thao, Ka Her, Jose Alanis, Anthony 6 Sanchez, Rachel LeBoeuf, David Ventura, Dillon Owens, and Jonathan Sanchez (the “County 7 Defendants”), file a statement signifying whether they approve or disapprove of the terms of the 8 stipulation filed on October 4, 2023, and consent to allowing for Plaintiffs’ second cause of 9 action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. be dismissed with 10 prejudice. (ECF No. 90.) 11 On October 12, 2023, the County Defendants filed a statement indicating that Defendants 12 Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N., should not be dismissed from the second 13 claim for relief for excessive force. (ECF No. 92.) Because there was not consent from all 14 parties to amendment or dismissal, the Court ordered that if Plaintiffs and the stipulating parties 15 wished to amend the complaint, that Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend with any 16 joining parties. (ECF No. 93.) 17 The Court also recognized that the parties’ September 26, 2023 stipulated request to 18 clarify the second amended complaint to correct “Sanchez” as referred to in particular points of 19 the complaint, and to reflect that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from 20 Defendant County of Fresno, was not signed by all Defendants. (ECF No. 87.) Accordingly, 21 due to the multiple ancillary requests by the parties outside conformance with both Rule 41 and 22 Rule 15, the Court ordered, in part, that the parties file a stipulation which contains the 23 agreement of all parties to amend the complaint as to both the dismissal of Defendants 24 Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N. from the second cause of action and to the 25 clarifications regarding “Sanchez” and damages against Defendant County of Fresno. (ECF No. 26 93.) Alternatively, if all parties in this action did not stipulate to the described requests, the 27 Court ordered Plaintiffs and any joining parties to file a leave to amend the second amended 1 On October 27, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation by all parties to this action 2 | dismissing Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief against two defendants and clarifying Plaintiffs’ 3 | second amended complaint. (ECF No. 95.) Specifically, the parties proffer they stipulate to the 4 | following: (1) “dismiss[al]” of Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief, 42 U.S.C. §1983 Excessive 5 | Force in Violation of Fourth Amendment, against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria 6 | Guerrero, R.N. with prejudice and each party bearing their own costs and fees; (2) clarification 7 | that in paragraphs 31 and 33 of Plaintiff's second amended complaint, “Sanchez” and “Officer 8 | Sanchez” refer to Officer Jonathan Sanchez, and in paragraphs 40 and 42, “Sanchez” and 9 | “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer Anthony Sanchez; and (3) Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or 10 | treble damages from Defendant County of Fresno. (Id. at 3.) Alternatively, the parties stipulate 11 | to the Court granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the second amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12 | 15, to make only the changes described in the stipulation. (Id.) The Court finds a third amended 13 | complaint is necessary to both properly conform with Rule 15 and maintain a clear and concise 14 | docket. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The parties’ stipulated request for leave to amend Plaintiffs’ second amended 17 complaint subject to the limitations as stipulated by the parties (ECF No. 95) is 18 GRANTED; and 19 2. Plaintiffs shall file the third amended complaint within seven (7) days of entry of 20 this order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 33 | Dated: _ October 30, 2023 " UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28