From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD

10-19-2022

MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.,” a fictitious name, by and through her next friend, MARIA DOE, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK; JAGDEEP SINGH, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Sushma Giri; V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC; and ALIDA ESTRADA, Defendants.


ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On September 15, 2022, this Court filed an order that, among other things, dismissed Plaintiffs' third and fourth causes of action with leave to amend. The Court advised Plaintiffs that if no amended complaint was timely filed, those causes of action would be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties.

No amended pleading has been filed. Accordingly, the third and fourth causes of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Doe v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)
Case details for

Doe v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.,” a…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 19, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)