(PC) King v. Weston

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00943
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY KING, Case No.: 1:20-cv-000943-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION SUBSTITUTING NAPHCARE, INC. IN 13 v. PLACE OF DEFENDANTS SIDDIQI AND WESTON 14 ROBYNN WESTON, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 15 Defendants. COURT TO CLOSE CASE ON THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED DIMISSAL OF 16 THE ACTION

17 (Docs. 125, 127, 128)

19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 Following settlement conference proceedings held January 15, 2025, before Magistrate 21 Judge Jeremy D. Peterson, the parties reached a settlement in this action. (Doc. 119 [Minutes].) 22 The terms of the settlement were placed on the record and the parties were directed to finalize 23 their settlement agreement within 30 days. (Id.) 24 On January 16, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order Vacating Pretrial Conference Set 25 for February 13, 2025, and Order Converting Jury Trial Set for April 2, 2025 to a Pretrial 26 Conference. (Doc. 120.) 27 On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Dismissal.” (Doc. 125.) That same date, 1 may seek dismissal with a stipulation signed by all appearing parties,” the Court granted the 2 parties a one-day extension of time “to comply with the Court’s prior order (see Doc. 121)” by 3 timely filing a stipulated dismissal, in compliance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure. (See Doc. 126 [Minute Order].) 5 Thereafter, the parties filed a “Stipulated Motion to Substitute and Dismiss” (Doc. 127) 6 and a “Stipulation and Order for Dismissal of NaphCare Inc., With Prejudice” (Doc. 128). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. Stipulated Motion to Substitute and Dismiss (Doc. 127) 9 Plaintiff Barry King and Defendants Naeem Siddiqi, M.D. and Robynn Weston, N.P. 10 stipulate to substitute NaphCare, Inc., in place of Defendants Siddiqi and Weston, and to then 11 dismiss Defendants Siddiqi and Weston from the action with prejudice. The parties assert the 12 substitution stipulation is made pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 allowing for an amendment to the original pleading made prior to trial with the opposing party's 14 written consent. Defense counsel for Siddiqi and Weston states he “is also counsel for NaphCare, 15 Inc. (previously dismissed following Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment) and has been 16 authorized to inform the Court that NaphCare, Inc. agrees to the proposed amendment 17 substituting NaphCare, Inc. into this action as a defendant in place of” Siddiqi and Weston. The 18 parties represent the substitution will not prejudice the parties and is not made for the purposes of 19 delay or dilatory tactics. Rather, the parties assert “the substitution is made for the purpose of 20 finalizing the settlement agreement that has been reached between NaphCare, Inc., and Plaintiff.” 21 Lastly, the parties indicate a separate stipulation of dismissal of NaphCare, Inc. will be 22 forthcoming “after it is substituted in and completes its settlement with Plaintiff.” 23 Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning other amendments 24 before trial, provides in relevant part that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 25 party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Here, the parties seek to substitute former defendant 26 NaphCare, Inc. for Defendants Siddiqi and Weston to complete their settlement, therefore, all 27 parties consent to the amendment or substitution sought. Given defense counsel’s representations ee I II EIEIO IIE III ED

1 | substitution is appropriate.' 2 B. Stipulation for Dismissal of Naphcare, Inc. (Doc. 128) 3 On March 19, 2025, the parties filed a “Stipulation and Order for Dismissal of Naphcare, 4 | Inc., With Prejudice.” The stipulation is signed and dated by Morgan Ricketts, counsel for 5 | Plaintiff Barry King, and by Chad C. Couchot, counsel for Defendant Naphcare, Inc., and 6 | indicates that the parties stipulate to a dismissal of this action with prejudice, and that each party 7 | shall bear its own fees and costs. 8 In light of the dismissal, this action will terminate by operation of law without further 9 | order from the Court (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) and the Clerk of the Court will be 10 | directed to close this case. 11 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 Based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 13 1. The parties’ substitution of NaphCare, Inc. in place of Defendants Siddiqi and Weston 14 (Doc. 127) is GRANTED; 15 2. Defendant NaphCare, Inc. is SUBSTITUTED in place of Defendants Siddiqi and 16 Robynn Weston; 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket noting dismissal with 18 prejudice, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close this case. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _-Marech 20, 2025 | br Pr 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 || | See, e.g., Fern v. United States, 213 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1954) (“Once the adverse party has consented to the amendment of a pleading, the Court has no control over the matter under Rule 15(a)”); Grant v. United States, No. 26 2:11-cv-00360 LKK KJN PS, 2011 WL 5554878, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011) (court noting it approved a stipulation dismissing a defendant and substituting a related defendant in its place); see also, e.g., Spectrum 27 Dynamics Medical Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co. Company, No. 18-CV-11386 (VSB) (KHP), 2023 WL 7135236, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2023) (granting substitution of “Precision Healthcare and GE HealthCare ... as the defendants in 28 || this action ... pursuant to the stipulation that the substitute defendants will accept liability”).