D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-07152
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In D. R. v. Contra Costa County, Judge Chesney granted an extension and lifted a stay, but denied leave to add claims and a defendant without prejudice.
The order affected the plaintiffs, Contra Costa County, Tasha Mizel, Marcia Franich, and DockATot by changing an amendment deadline, lifting a stay, and governing whether additional claims and a defendant could be proposed.
What happened
In D. R. v. Contra Costa County, the plaintiffs asked the court to extend a deadline, lift a stay involving Marcia Franich, and allow additional claims and a new defendant.
The court extended the deadline for plaintiffs to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint concerning Contra Costa County and Tasha Mizel to October 16, 2020. It also lifted the stay of the plaintiffs’ claims against Franich.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the request to add claims against Franich and to add DockATot as a defendant, but did so without prejudice to a new motion that includes a proposed Third Amended Complaint.
The detailed version
- D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA · No. 3:19-cv-07152
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed an administrative motion on October 5, 2020. Contra Costa County and Tasha Mizel were the only defendants who had appeared, and they did not respond to the motion.
Rulings
The court ruled on the motion in three parts:
1. Deadline extension granted. The court granted the request to extend the deadline for filing a proposed Second Amended Complaint to amend the plaintiffs’ claims against Contra Costa County and Tasha Mizel. The new deadline was October 16, 2020.
2. Stay lifted. The court granted the request to lift the stay of the plaintiffs’ claims against Marcia Franich.
3. Request to add claims and defendant denied without prejudice. The court denied the request to add claims against Franich and to add DockATot as a defendant. The denial was without prejudice to filing a new motion for permission to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint, with the proposed pleading attached.
Disposition
The order was titled “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion.” The court entered the order on October 13, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.