L.S.
L.S. v. Henderson
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
L.S., et al., Case No. 20-cv-04637-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
v. MOTION TO DISMISS
RICHARD HENDERSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 37 Defendants.
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…