(PC) Gracia v. County of Kern

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA GRACIA, individually and as Case No. 1:23-cv-01104 JLT BAM successor-in-interest to LOUIE GRIJALVA 12 IV, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO JOIN HEIRS 14 v. (Docs. 38, 42) 15 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 This case arises out of the death of Louie Grijalva IV, while a convicted prisoner serving 19 his sentence at the Kern County Jail – Lerdo Pretrial Facility in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff 20 Carolina Gracia, individually and as successor-in-interest to Decedent, states claims against the 21 defendants under federal and state law. (Doc. 10.) Defendant County of Kern moved to require 22 Gracia to join certain heirs, including Decedent’s father, as necessary parties. (Doc. 38.) The 23 Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge for appropriate action. (Doc. 41.) 24 The magistrate judge found that “Decedent’s father, as a known heir, is a necessary party 25 under state law.” (Doc. 42 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge found no “evidence or a 26 supporting declaration” supporting a determination that joinder was not feasible. (Id. at 4.) 27 Finally, while there was a suggestion the claims of Decedent’s father may be barred by the 28 applicable statute of limitations, the magistrate judge found it was not necessary to reach the issue 1 | atthis stage. Ud.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant the motion to 2 | join heirs and direct Garcia “to file a second amended complaint that either joins Decedent’s 3 | father or alleges additional facts establishing why joinder is not required.” (/d. at 5.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 5 || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 42 at 5.) The Court advised that the “failure to 6 | file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 7 | magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838- 8 | 39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so expired. However, on 9 | February 10, 2025, Gracia filed a second amended complaint alleging that it is not necessary to 10 | join Decedent’s father as a party to this action as the applicable statute of limitations for any 11 | federal or state law claims has passed. (Doc. 43; see id. at 4.) 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 13 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 14 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Because Gracia filed a second amended 15 || complaint as recommended prior to this order, the filing is ordered nunc pro tunc and the Court 16 | will not require Garcia to re-file the SAC. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 27, 2025 (Doc. 42) are 18 ADOPTED. 19 2. Defendant County of Kern’s motion to join heirs (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. 20 3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 43) is now the operative complaint. 21 4. Defendants SHALL file an answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ February 13, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28