Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valdez v. City of San Jose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 10, 2009

FRANCISCO VALDEZ, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeremy Fogel United States District Court, Northern District San Jose Division

STIPULATION, REQUEST, AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned counsel, that the plaintiffs have sufficient grounds for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", based on the following facts:

1. Plaintiffs initially filed this action on January 14, 2009;

2. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on February 2, 2009, as a matter of right;

3. To accommodate investigation into legal and factual grounds for naming additional defendants and an additional plaintiff, the parties stipulated to allow the defendants additional time to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint to March 4, 2009;

4. By March 4, 2009, investigation into the potential new claim(s) was continuing and incomplete despite the diligence of the parties and therefore the parties stipulated to allow the defendants additional time to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint to April 24, 2009.

5. On April 24, 2009, the plaintiffs informed the defense that their investigation into the potential new claim(s) was completed and have determined it is warranted to name a new plaintiff and additional defendants in this action.

6. The parties have therefore agreed that interests of judicial economy and the preservation of judicial resources will be served by allowing the plaintiffs to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached hereto.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the defendants are not required to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint, if this Order is entered by the Court, who shall then have 20 days to respond from that date of filing of the Second Amended Complaint. If the Court does not enter this Order, all named Defendants must respond to the First Amended Complaint by May 15, 2009.

So stipulated.

DATED: April 29, 2009

SO ORDERED.

20090710

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.