Opinion
20-cv-04637-VC
09-14-2021
L.S., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD HENDERSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 37
VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge.
The motion to dismiss the state law claims is denied. The plaintiffs were prepared to file their amended complaint in January 2021 (well within the limitations period) but agreed with the defendants and the Court to delay the filing until the defendants' motion for a protective order could be adjudicated. For this reason, and as explained more fully at the hearing, this justifies tolling the limitations period between the original deadline for filing an amended complaint (January 22, 2021) and the date the Court ruled on the defendants' motion for a protective order (March 24, 2021). With this equitable tolling period, the state law claims are timely. There is no conceivable argument that the short delay in filing the amended complaint would prejudice the defendants' ability to defend the state law claims. The plaintiffs have pursued their claims diligently and in good faith. And it would be grossly unfair to penalize the plaintiffs for their agreement to delay filing the amended complaint to accommodate the defendants' effort to keep their names under seal. See Addison v. State, 578 P.2d 941, 943-44 (Cal. 1978); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir. 2004). With respect to the defendants' motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim, the motion is dismissed as moot given the plaintiffs' concession that they are pursuing only a Fourth Amendment claim as to the first cause of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.