Cornejo v. Moran, 17-cv-04664-CRB (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171214c61
Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2017
Summary: DENYING [23] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Plaintiffs Marimar Cornejo and Jamil Bey ("Plaintiffs") filed for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction ("PI") (dkts. 2-4), alleging that the City of San Francisco ("City") improperly impounded their vehicle (dkt. 1). The Court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on Aug. 15, 2017. Dkt. 9. The City then filed a motion to
Summary: DENYING [23] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Plaintiffs Marimar Cornejo and Jamil Bey ("Plaintiffs") filed for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction ("PI") (dkts. 2-4), alleging that the City of San Francisco ("City") improperly impounded their vehicle (dkt. 1). The Court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on Aug. 15, 2017. Dkt. 9. The City then filed a motion to ..
More
DENYING [23] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Marimar Cornejo and Jamil Bey ("Plaintiffs") filed for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction ("PI") (dkts. 2-4), alleging that the City of San Francisco ("City") improperly impounded their vehicle (dkt. 1). The Court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on Aug. 15, 2017. Dkt. 9. The City then filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 17. Plaintiffs missed the Nov. 13 deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss. On Nov. 16, the Court ordered plaintiffs to show cause by Nov. 24 why their case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 20. Plaintiffs missed this deadline, as well. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to consider the merits and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on Dec. 1, holding that there was no set of facts under which plaintiff could state a valid and sufficient claim. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987).
On Dec. 7, Plaintiffs filed a "First Amended Complaint." In addition to being untimely filed, the complaint has the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The Court therefore DENIES LEAVE TO FILE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
