(PS) Bell v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELTHENIA BELL, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02539-TLN-JDP (PS) Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND v. TO FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY ECF Nos. 15, 17

OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’

Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

ECF No. 9

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESET INITIAL SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

ECF No. 21

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUEST

ECF No. 22

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ complaint does not plead sufficiently detailed or specific factual allegations and is, therefore, defective for failing to articulate a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, and a motion to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 15. Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, and the court will grant plaintiffs’ motion here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Additionally, plaintiffs seek to file redacted documents in support of their second amended complaint. ECF No. 17. For good cause shown, plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file redacted documents is granted. Without expressing any view as to its merits, the court dismisses defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Defendants are directed to either answer the new second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, or file a new motion as appropriate.

Accordingly:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is dismissed without prejudice.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, ECF No. 15, is granted.

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to file redacted documents, ECF No. 17, is granted.

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to reset the initial scheduling conference, ECF No. 21, is granted. The initial scheduling conference is reset for September 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson with the filing of a joint status report due seven days prior.

5. Plaintiffs’ motion request, ECF No. 22, regarding defendants’ motion is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ June 2, 2021

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE