Dartez v. Redwood Property Investors III
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:26-cv-01644
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gary Dartez v. Redwood Property Investors III, Judge Gilliam terminated a moot dismissal motion, granted more time, and denied a temporary stay.
Gary Dartez, Tamisha Latimore, the City of Antioch, Redwood Property Investors III, and the other parties to the case. The order changes the parties’ filing deadlines and leaves the amended complaint pending while denying a temporary pause in the federal case.
What happened
In Gary Dartez, et al. v. Redwood Property Investors III, LC, et al., Gary Dartez and Tamisha Latimore filed an amended complaint. Redwood Property Investors III, LLC withdrew its pending motions, and the City of Antioch agreed that its motion to dismiss was now moot.
The City also sought a temporary pause in the federal case because related matters were pending in state court. The court said the record did not clearly show how much those matters overlapped with the amended complaint and noted that this type of stay is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
Judge Gilliam terminated the City’s motion to dismiss as moot, discharged the order requiring defendants to explain why the motions should not be terminated, granted defendants more time to respond to the amended complaint, and denied the temporary stay. Defendants’ response deadline was extended to September 30, 2026, and plaintiffs’ deadline to oppose any motion was extended to October 28, 2026.
The detailed version
- Dartez v. Redwood Property Investors III · No. 4:26-cv-01644
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 15, 2026
Background
Gary Dartez and Tamisha Latimore filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2026. Before that filing, defendants had pending a motion for a more definite statement and a motion to dismiss. The court ordered defendants to show cause—meaning to explain—why those motions should not be terminated as moot because of the amended complaint.
Redwood Property Investors, LLC withdrew its motions. The City of Antioch agreed that its motion to dismiss was moot. The defendants also asked for additional time to respond to the amended complaint. The court extended defendants’ response deadline to September 30, 2026, and extended plaintiffs’ deadline to oppose any motion to October 28, 2026.
Motion for a Temporary Stay
The City had also moved for a temporary stay, or pause, under the Colorado River doctrine. The City argued that two related matters were pending in Contra Costa County Superior Court: a writ petition against the City and Redwood Property Investors III, LLC, and a complaint against Redwood Property Investors. According to the City, those matters arose from the City’s administrative Rent Program, under which plaintiffs had obtained a rent reduction and a refund for part of past rent overcharges. The City argued that the matters shared core facts concerning plaintiffs’ prior tenancy in Antioch, California.
The court found that the existing record did not clearly show whether, or to what extent, the state-court matters overlapped with the claims in the amended complaint. The court also noted that the Colorado River doctrine should be used only in exceptional circumstances. It therefore denied the motion for a temporary stay. The court stated that defendants could file a noticed motion for a stay if they continued to believe one was warranted, but cautioned that the cursory analysis in the earlier motion would not be sufficient.
Disposition
The court TERMINATED AS MOOT the City’s motion to dismiss, discharged the order to show cause, GRANTED the request for additional time to respond to the amended complaint, and DENIED the motion for a temporary stay. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.