Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 11 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (ECF Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 95) Defendants. SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 16 Following the adoption of findings and recommendations on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 85.) On October 4, 2023, a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N, was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), signed by only Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, 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 Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N., the Court found Rule 15, not Rule 41, was the proper vehicle. (ECF No. 90). See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 th single claim from a multi-claim complaint”). Rule 15 provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Therefore, on October 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County Sheriff- Coroner Margaret Mims, Correctional Lieutenant Jami Carter, Sergeant Chris Garcia, and Officers Frank Ponce, Moises Franco, Meng Cha, Linda Thao, Ka Her, Jose Alanis, Anthony Sanchez, Rachel LeBoeuf, David Ventura, Dillon Owens, and Jonathan Sanchez (the “County Defendants”), file a statement signifying whether they approve or disapprove of the terms of the stipulation filed on October 4, 2023, and consent to allowing for Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 90.)

11 On October 12, 2023, the County Defendants filed a statement indicating that Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N., should not be dismissed from the second claim for relief for excessive force. (ECF No. 92.) Because there was not consent from all parties to amendment or dismissal, the Court ordered that if Plaintiffs and the stipulating parties wished to amend the complaint, that Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend with any joining parties. (ECF No. 93.)

17 The Court also recognized that the parties’ September 26, 2023 stipulated request to clarify the second amended complaint to correct “Sanchez” as referred to in particular points of the complaint, and to reflect that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from Defendant County of Fresno, was not signed by all Defendants. (ECF No. 87.) Accordingly, due to the multiple ancillary requests by the parties outside conformance with both Rule 41 and Rule 15, the Court ordered, in part, that the parties file a stipulation which contains the agreement of all parties to amend the complaint as to both the dismissal of Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N. from the second cause of action and to the clarifications regarding “Sanchez” and damages against Defendant County of Fresno. (ECF No. 93.) Alternatively, if all parties in this action did not stipulate to the described requests, the 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 | dismissing Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief against two defendants and clarifying Plaintiffs’ | second amended complaint. (ECF No. 95.) Specifically, the parties proffer they stipulate to the | following: (1) “dismiss[al]” of Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief, 42 U.S.C. §1983 Excessive | Force in Violation of Fourth Amendment, against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria | Guerrero, R.N. with prejudice and each party bearing their own costs and fees; (2) clarification | that in paragraphs 31 and 33 of Plaintiff's second amended complaint, “Sanchez” and “Officer | Sanchez” refer to Officer Jonathan Sanchez, and in paragraphs 40 and 42, “Sanchez” and | “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer Anthony Sanchez; and (3) Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or | treble damages from Defendant County of Fresno. (Id. at 3.) Alternatively, the parties stipulate | to the Court granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the second amended complaint, pursuant to Rule | 15, to make only the changes described in the stipulation. (Id.) The Court finds a third amended | complaint is necessary to both properly conform with Rule 15 and maintain a clear and concise | 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _ October 30, 2023 " UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE