LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc., 17-cv-07194-MMC. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180315b09
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 54 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion, filed February 14, 2018, "for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. has filed opposition. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 54 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion, filed February 14, 2018, "for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. has filed opposition. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for d..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 54
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion, filed February 14, 2018, "for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. has filed opposition. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for determination on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 6, 2018, and rules as follows.
Under the Local Rules of this District, a a party seeking leave to file an amended complaint "must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference." See Civil L.R. 10-1. Here, plaintiffs, in support of the instant motion, have not submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint, nor even explained what proposed amendments they seek to make.
Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiffs' refilng the motion, accompanied by a proposed Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
