Pardo v. The County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01062
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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