Pardo v. The County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered the County of San Diego's ex parte motion for an extension of time to respond to the plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The court accepted the second amended complaint and granted the motion, ordering the defendant to file a response by January 17, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Acceptance of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint“the Court, in its discretion and good cause appearing, ACCEPTS Plaintiffs’ SAC” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to accept the filing despite the plaintiffs' failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 15.1(c) (redlining requirement). While the rule is mandatory, courts often have discretion to accept non-compliant filings if the defect is curable or if the opposing party is not prejudiced, particularly when the court is simultaneously addressing the opposing party's procedural failures. |
Grant of Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Deadline“GRANTS Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 20).” | agree with court The court granted the extension based on 'good cause' (holidays and plaintiffs' procedural non-compliance). Although the defendant failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) regarding ex parte motions, the court exercised discretion to accept the motion and grant the relief, likely balancing the equities and the minor nature of the procedural defects on both sides. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. The judge correctly identified the procedural deficiencies of both parties (Plaintiffs' failure to redline under CivLR 15.1(c) and Defendant's failure to provide an affidavit for the ex parte motion under CivLR 83.3(g)(2)). The judge exercised discretion to accept the filings and grant the extension, citing 'good cause' and the holidays. The reliance on Kashin v. Kent supports the court's authority to manage these procedural issues. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine scheduling order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO S. PARDO, M.D.; Case No.: 24-CV-1062 JLS (SBC) RICARDO JOAQUIN; FRANCISCO 12 PARDO; MARIA-AMELIA PARDO; and ORDER (1) ACCEPTING 13 VICTOR PARDO, PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (2) GRANTING 14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION 15 v. FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ 16 THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; REINA SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT LOPEZ; THOMAS RUFF; LONNIE 17 LAU; KIM GIARDIA; DHHS (ECF Nos. 19, 20) 18 DIRECTOR; NICK MACCHIONE; and DOES 1–50, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s Ex Parte Motion for 22 Extension of Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF 23 No. 20). Defendant requests an additional two weeks to answer or otherwise respond to 24 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” ECF No. 19)—filed on December 20, 25 2024—due to the December holidays and Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Civil Local 26 Rule 15.1(c), which requires “[a]ny amended pleading filed after the granting of a motion 27 to dismiss . . . [to] be accompanied by a version of that pleading that shows—through 28 redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods—how 1 || that pleading differs from the previously dismissed pleading.” The Court notes Plaintiffs’ 2 noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 15.1(c), but it also notes Defendant’s noncompliance 3 || with Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2), which prohibits ex parte motions from being filed without 4 affidavit or declaration attesting to the party’s attempt at informing the opposing party 5 || of the motion or specifying why notice to the opposing party should not be required. While 6 || both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules are grounds 7 || to reject their filings, see Kashin v. Kent, No. O2CV2495LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, 8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007), aff'd, 342 F. App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 9 ||S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.1(a) (providing that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may 10 grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or 11 |/rule or within the inherent power of the Court”), the Court, in its discretion and good cause 12 ||appearing, ACCEPTS Plaintiffs’ SAC, ACCEPTS Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion, and 13 || GRANTS Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 20). 14 Defendant County of San Diego SHALL FILE an answer or otherwise respond to 15 SAC on or before January 17, 2025. However, the Court cautions the Parties to comply 16 || with the Civil Local Rules henceforth. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: J anuary 3, 2025 19 pen Janis L. Sammartino 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28