Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMay 29, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00554
StatusUnknown

This text of Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families (Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 SOPHIE HARTMAN, et al., CASE NO. C24-0554JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al., 14 15 Defendants.

16 Before the court is a stipulated motion to extend the noting date as to Plaintiffs 17 Sophie Hartman, M.H., and C.H.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for leave to amend 18 their complaint. (Mot. Extend (Dkt. # 35); see Mot. Leave (Dkt. # 22).) The stipulated 19 motion, however, is not signed by counsel for Defendants Seattle Children’s Hospital, 20 Nancy Chase, and Beth Nauert. (See Mot. Extend at 3.) Plaintiffs note that they “have 21 not heard back from counsel” for those parties. (Id. at 1 n.1.) 22 // 1 Failure to include signatures from counsel for all parties constitutes grounds for 2 denial. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 1(c)(7) (noting that a stipulated motion is an

3 agreement “between or among the parties”). Nevertheless, the court has the inherent 4 authority to manage its dockets, Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016), and finds good 5 cause to grant Plaintiffs’ request. 6 The court therefore GRANTS the motion to extend the noting date as to Plaintiffs’ 7 motion for leave to amend their complaint (Dkt. # 35). The court DIRECTS the Clerk to 8 re-note Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (Dkt. # 22) for June 12,

9 2024. 10 Dated this 29th day of May, 2024. A 11 JAMES L. ROBART 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dietz v. Bouldin
579 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-state-of-washington-department-of-children-youth-and-families-wawd-2024.