G. v. Tulare County

1 T. Kennedy Helm, IV (SBN 282319) HELM LAW OFFICE, PC 644 40th Street, Suite 305 Oakland, California 94609 T: (510) 350-7517 F: (510) 350-7359 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, ) 11 2 i D bn yed c aiv e ndi dd e u tn ha t r l F oly ur a ga nn hcd i h sa ecs ro gc Po uo- as n ru dcc ie ac , n e J s r as . d;o Fr l i.i tGn e m.i ,n at Je omr he i as nt no at ro , ) ) ) ) S L CT E OI A MP VU PEL L A T AT O INI O F TIN L EA N AD F O IRR SD TE AR M F EO NR D ED Yolanda Corral Galvan, individually and as ) co-successor in interest to Decedent Francisco ) (Doc. 22) Ponce, Jr.; individually, ) 14 ) ) 15 Plaintiffs, ) ) 16 vs. ) ) 17 ) COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity; and ) DOES 1–50, jointly and severally, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) ) ) 1 Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, T. Kennedy Helm, IV, of Helm Law Office, PC, and Defendant, by and through its counsel, Gary Logan, of Lebeau Thelen, LLP, hereby respectfully stipulate and request as follows: RECITALS 1. Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 19), “[a]ll proposed amendments 6 must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment 7 requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 8 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 9 that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of 10 undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 11 182 (1962).

12 2. As to (A), the Parties agree that Plaintiffs submit their proposed First Amended 13 Complaint on or before December 10, 2023, in compliance with the existing scheduling order, as modified by stipulation and order. See ECF Nos. 20, 21.

3. As to (B), the Parties stipulate that Plaintiffs’ proposed First Amended Complaint satisfies the five factors Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962): (1) there is no undue prejudice to the opposing party; (2) there has been no undue delay; (3) there is no bad faith or dilatory motive by the movants, Plaintiffs; (4) there have been no repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendment; and (5) amendment is not futileEminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

STIPULATION Given the foregoing, the Parties stipulate that Plaintiffs may file the proposed First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. For the Court’s convenience, a redline version is attached as Exhibit 2.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Respectfully Submitted, Dated: December 5, 2023 HELM LAW OFFICE, PC /s/ T. Kennedy Helm, IV 2 By: T. KENNEDY HELM, IV Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: December 5, 2023 LEBEAU THELEN LLP /s/ Gary L. Logan* 6 By: GARY L. LOGAN Attorneys for Defendants *Mr. Logan provided his consent that this document be filed by CM/ECF.

ORDER The Court, having considered the Parties’ foregoing stipulation (Doc. 22), and for good cause shown, GRANTS the stipulation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs SHALL file the proposed First Amended Complaint, attached to the Parties’ stipulation as Exhibit 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE