Daigle
Daigle v. City of Oceanside
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GWEN DAIGLE, Case No. 19-cv-01180-BAS-WVG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE v. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFFS AND TO FILE
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED
CITY OF OCEANSIDE, et al., COMPLAINT Defendants. [ECF No. 23] 16 17 On February 3, 2020, Brandon Lee Daigle and Hunter Willow Munsterman, as 18 successors-in-interest to Plaintiff Gwen Daigle, moved ex parte seeking to file a Motion to 19 Substitute Plaintiffs and a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in this case. 20 (ECF No. 23.) The ex parte application is unopposed.1 21 To warrant ex parte relief, the moving party must show that it will suffer irreparable 22 harm if the motion is not heard on an expedited schedule and that it either did not create the 23 circumstances warranting ex parte relief or that the circumstances occurred as a result of 24 excusable neglect. Mission Power Eng’g Co.…