# Baday v. County of Kings

> District Court, E.D. California · October 22, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022925

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 22, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022925

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022925. Public record. Not legal advice.