Langley

Langley v. Guiding Hands School, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 20252:20-cv-00635California1,515 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STACIA LANGLEY, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GUIDING HANDS SCHOOL, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Stacia Langley and the Estate of Max Benson have filed a Motion to Sever the claims of Stacia Langley, David Benson, and the Estate of Max Benson (“Langley Plaintiffs”) from the claims of the other Plaintiffs in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (Mot. (ECF No. 320).) With the sole exception of Defendant Amador County Unified School District (“ACUSD”), all other parties have joined, filed statements of non-opposition, or not opposed Langley Plaintiffs’ Motion. (See ECF Nos. 323–25, 329–31, 333–34.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Langley Plaintiffs’ Motion over Defendant ACUSD’s Opposition. Under Rule 21, the court has the ability to “add or drop a party” as well as “sever any claim against a party.” There is no established test used in the Ninth Circuit for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.