ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for a hearing. ECF No. 23. This case was removed from state court with plaintiffs proceeding pro se, and was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). ECF No. 1. Following a hearing on February 20, 2019, which plaintiffs attended in person, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 20. On April 23, 2019, the District Judge assigned to this case issued an order adopting the findings and recommendations in full, and granting plaintiffs 30 days to amend the complaint. ECF No. 22. That deadline has now passed, and plaintiffs have not filed the anticipated amended complaint.

Instead, on May 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed a "Motion for a Hearing for the Plaintiffs to Comply with the Courts Rules of Civil Procedure" (sic). ECF No. 23. This motion is difficult to follow, but it seems to reiterate plaintiffs' erroneous belief that they do not need to articulate facts to support their claims and that defendant has violated the law by removing this case to federal court. Id. at 2-4. The undersigned has previously informed plaintiffs that neither proposition is correct, and has cautioned plaintiffs against relying on these theories in any amended complaint. ECF No. 20 at 5. Plaintiffs do not explain the need for another hearing at this time, and no motion is pending. Accordingly, the request will be denied. If plaintiffs wish to proceed with this action, they must file an amended complaint as previously instructed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: