Rebecca Lopez et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
| Jose Lopez and Rebecca Lopez |
| City of San Fernando, County of Los Angeles, Does, Los Angeles Sheriffs Department and San Fernando Police Department |
| 2:2015cv01745 |
| March 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Margaret M. Morrow |
| Margaret A. Nagle |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
97
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS IN THIS ACTION by Judge Manuel L. Real: Upon Stipulation 96 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court hereby dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs 9; entire action. Specifically, the Court dismisses with prejudice Defendants CITY OF SAN FERNANDO and SAN FERNANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT as parties to the action, as to all causes of action included within the most recent operative Complaint on file in this action prior to the filing date of the parties' Stipulation. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)
|
|
Filing
64
PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS by Judge Manuel L. Real, re Stipulation 63 . See document for details. (gk)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT by Judge Margaret M. Morrow: finding as moot 5 MOTION; granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss Case: For the reasons stated, the court grants defendants' motio ns to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend.26 See In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear... that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment"); California ex rel. California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile," citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this order if they are able to remedy the deficiencies the court has noted. Plaintiffs may not plead additional claims or add alle gations that are not intended to cure the specific defects the court has noted. Should any amended complaint exceed the scope of leave to amend granted by this order, the court will strike the offending portions under Rule 12(f). See FED.R.CIV.PR OC. 12(f) ("The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the plead ing or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading."); see also Barker v. Avila, No. 2:09-cv-00001-GEB-JFM, 2010 WL 3171067, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) (striking an amendment to federal law claim where the court had granted leave to amend only state law claims). (see document for further details) (bm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
