Opinion

Baday v. County of Kings

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 22, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.5%

The opinion

1 David S. McLane (124952)

dmclane@kmbllaw.com

2 Lindsay Battles (262862)

lbattles@kmbllaw.com

3

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

4 975 East Green Street

Pasadena CA 91106

5 Telephone: (626) 844-7660

Facsimile: (626) 844-7670

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 KARLA BADAY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00644-NONE-SKO

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

DEFENDANT DANIEL BROWN TO FILE

12 v. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

13 ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’

COUNTY OF KINGS, GEORGANNE

STIPULATED REQUEST

14 GREENE, ADVENTIST HEALTH

HANFORD, JOSHUA R. SPEER, JEFF J. (Doc. 30)

15 TORRES, JAMES GREGORY LEWIS,

DEAN MORROW, DANIEL BROWN,

16

AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

17

Defendants.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Defendant Daniel Brown (“Brown”) and Plaintiff Karla

2 Baday stipulate to extend the time for Defendant Brown to file an Answer to the Complaint in

this action. This request is for an extension of time of more than 30 days. Defendant Brown has

3

not requested nor been granted any prior extensions of time to file a responsive pleading.

4

Defendant Daniel Brown was personally served with the complaint in this action on June

5

11, 2020. The deadline for Defendant to file a responsive pleading expired on July 2, 2020.

6

On or about October 8, 2020, Defendant Brown, who is currently not represented by

7 counsel, contacted counsel for Plaintiff and advised that he had been attempting to contact the

8 malpractice group that provided coverage to him for the dates outlined in the Complaint and

9 requested a 30 day extension of time to file an answer, through November 9, 2020. On October

9, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff responded to Defendant Brown’s email advising that a stipulation

10

and proposed order would be required and inquiring as to when Defendant Brown expected to

11

retain counsel. Defendant Brown responded on October 15, 2020, stating that he was still in the

12

process of trying to retain counsel and that he intended to file an Answer.

13 The procedural posture of the case will not be affected by allowing Defendant Brown the

14 requested extension of time to file an Answer to the Complaint. The scheduling conference in

15 this case is scheduled for December 29, 2020, with reports due December 22, 2020. Currently

pending before the Court are Defendants Adventist Health Hanford and Georganne Greene’s

16

motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6).

17

The parties hereby stipulate to extend the time for Defendant Brown to file an Answer to

18

the Complaint to November 9, 2020

19

20 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21

22 KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

23

DATED: October 19, 2020 By: / s / David S. McLane

24 David S. McLane

25 By: / s / Lindsay Battles

Lindsay Battles

26

27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Karla Baday

1 DATED: October 19, 2020 By: / s / Daniel Brown, DO

Daniel Brown, DO

2 Defendant, In Pro Per

3

4

5 ORDER

6 The parties’ above stipulation requests an extension of time for Defendant Daniel Brown

7 to file an answer to the Complaint in this action, with which he was served on June 11, 2020 (see

8 Doc. 11). The stipulation, however, fails to mention that a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

9 (Doc. 23) was filed, with the Court’s leave (see Doc. 22), on September 3, 2020.

10

As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders

11

the latter inoperative. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010). It also

12

appears that Defendant Brown was not served with the FAC, as the docket does not reflect any

13

proof of service. (See Doc. 23.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), a

14

response to an amended pleading is to “be made within the time remaining to respond to the

15

original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.”

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file on the Court’s docket proof of

18

service of the FAC upon Defendant Brown by no later than October 26, 2020. Defendant

19

Brown’s responsive pleading is to be filed within 14 days of service of the FAC. The parties’

20

stipulated request for an extension of time is otherwise DENIED as moot.1

21

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Sheila K. Oberto

Dated: October 22, 2020 /s/ .

24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

1 The parties are advised that any future requests for extensions of time should be made before the expiration of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.