Hipschman
Hipschman v. County of San Diego
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-00903-AJB-BLM individual; et al., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public COMPLAINT entity; et al., (Doc. No. 65) 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to include as additional defendants, Tin Le and Maria Araiza, to their first cause of action for unwarranted seizure of their child, after discovery revealed their involvement therein. (Doc. No. 65-1 at 5.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. No. 70.) The Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. The motion hearing previously scheduled is hereby VACATED. 28 There being no opposition to Plaintiffs’ filing of a SAC as provided in Doc. No. 65-3 ||and no showing that the amendment would be futile…