Gonzalez
Gonzalez v. Ahern
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: WELLPATH’S MOTION
9 v. TO DIMISS PLAINTIFF TIKISHA
UPSHAW
10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 398 Defendants. 11
12 13 Wellpath’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Tikisha Upshaw is now pending before the Court. 14 (Dkt. Np. 398.) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and the relevant legal authority, the 15 Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Wellpath’s 16 motion. 17 Wellpath moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on the grounds 18 that Plaintiffs added Ms. Upshaw as a Plaintiff in the Fifth Amended Complaint filed April 20, 19 2022 without leave of the Court. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is discretionary. In re 20 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Wellpath 21 offers no explanation for why it waited nearly two years to bring this motion. While Wellpath 22 filed an…