Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles

C.D. California

Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles

DecidedFebruary 15, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01165

StatusUnknown

This text of Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles (Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01165-ODW-GJS Document 32 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:352

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 ISAAC CASTELLANOS, Case № 2:22-cv-01165-ODW (GJSx) 11

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 TO SUBSTITUTE DOE 15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., DEFENDANTS [30]

16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Isaac Castellanos moved for leave to amend the 20 Complaint to substitute Doe Defendants. (Mot. Leave Amend (“Motion” or “Mot.”), 21 ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff represents that the Motion is unopposed. (Id. at 2.) In 22 addition, the parties stipulated to shorten the notice period on the Motion because 23 Defendants will not file an opposition to the Motion. (Stip. Shorten Notice 24 (“Stipulation”) 2, ECF No. 31.) 25 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the 26 Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the 28 Caskp 2:22-cv-01165-ODW-GJS Document 32 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:353

1 || parties’ Stipulation seeking to shorten the notice period prior to holding a hearing. 2 || (ECF No. 31.) 3 Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs Motion, and the Court finds that Plaintiff 4|| has shown good cause to amend the Complaint to substitute Doe Defendants under 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Learjet, Inc. 6 |v. ONEOK, Inc., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court 7|| GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to 8 | Substitute Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 30.) 9 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint by 10 | February 23, 2023. 1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 February 15, 2023 15 es

7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Case 2:22-cv-01165-ODW-GJS Document 32 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:352

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 ISAAC CASTELLANOS, Case № 2:22-cv-01165-ODW (GJSx) 11

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 TO SUBSTITUTE DOE 15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., DEFENDANTS [30]

16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Isaac Castellanos moved for leave to amend the 20 Complaint to substitute Doe Defendants. (Mot. Leave Amend (“Motion” or “Mot.”), 21 ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff represents that the Motion is unopposed. (Id. at 2.) In 22 addition, the parties stipulated to shorten the notice period on the Motion because 23 Defendants will not file an opposition to the Motion. (Stip. Shorten Notice 24 (“Stipulation”) 2, ECF No. 31.) 25 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the 26 Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the 28 Caskp 2:22-cv-01165-ODW-GJS Document 32 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:353

1 || parties’ Stipulation seeking to shorten the notice period prior to holding a hearing. 2 || (ECF No. 31.) 3 Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs Motion, and the Court finds that Plaintiff 4|| has shown good cause to amend the Complaint to substitute Doe Defendants under 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Learjet, Inc. 6 |v. ONEOK, Inc., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court 7|| GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to 8 | Substitute Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 30.) 9 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint by 10 | February 23, 2023. 1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 February 15, 2023 15 es

7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Isaac Castellanos v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaac-castellanos-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack