Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DeNECOCHEA v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, 2:13-cv-01906-MCE-CKD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141224768 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. By Order filed October 2, 2014 (ECF No. 36), this Court directed Plaintiff to file an additional amended complaint not later than October 31, 2012. That order mooted Plaintiff's previously filed Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 31), as well as a subsequent motion to Continue the Hearing Date on the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 34). In additionally, given the Court's decision to permit an amended pleading, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (E
More

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

By Order filed October 2, 2014 (ECF No. 36), this Court directed Plaintiff to file an additional amended complaint not later than October 31, 2012. That order mooted Plaintiff's previously filed Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 31), as well as a subsequent motion to Continue the Hearing Date on the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 34). In additionally, given the Court's decision to permit an amended pleading, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 38, 39) were denied except with respect to Plaintiff's Claims against the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, Officers Hawkinson and Mertens and Sergeant Beland (in their official capacities), given Plaintiff's non-opposition as to those particular dismissal requests. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was subsequently filed on October 31, 2014 (ECF No. 38).

On November 9, 2014, approximately ten days later, Plaintiff filed a Motion to further amend his complaint, purportedly to assure compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and "to have the amended complaint as its own document.". Pl.'s Mot., 1:19-21. No opposition was filed to that Motion, which is presently before the Court. Given that non-opposition, Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED.1 Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed Third (mistakenly denominated as Second) Amended Complaint not later than ten (10) days after the date this Order is electronically filed. In addition, given the impending Third Amended Complaint, the Motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Adam Fairman and Sutter Memorial Hospital (ECF No. 43) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Because oral argument was not deemed to be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer