Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF ESTOPPEL OR MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs initially brought this action arising out of an allegedly defective product against five entities: Orange Glo, Orange Glo International, Inc., Appel Co., Church & Dwight, and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Complaint naming Church & Dwight Co., Inc. ("defendant") as the sole defendant and concurre
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF ESTOPPEL OR MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs initially brought this action arising out of an allegedly defective product against five entities: Orange Glo, Orange Glo International, Inc., Appel Co., Church & Dwight, and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Complaint naming Church & Dwight Co., Inc. ("defendant") as the sole defendant and concurren..
More
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF ESTOPPEL OR MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiffs initially brought this action arising out of an allegedly defective product against five entities: Orange Glo, Orange Glo International, Inc., Appel Co., Church & Dwight, and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Complaint naming Church & Dwight Co., Inc. ("defendant") as the sole defendant and concurrently dismissed the other entities without prejudice. (Docket Nos. 7-9.) The court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order on November 20, 2014. (Docket No. 25.)
Plaintiffs now move to apply equitable and judicial estoppel against defendant's assertion of a defense based on successor liability. In the alternative, plaintiffs move to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order and file a Second Amended Complaint to add additional defendants, including those they previously dismissed. (Docket No. 28.) Defendant has filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiffs' alternative motion asking the court to modify the pretrial schedule and grant plaintiffs leave to file their Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 29.)
Because oral argument will not be of assistance to the court in ruling on this motion, the hearing set for December 14, 2015 is VACATED pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and the court will take the motion under submission without oral argument. Accordingly, in the absence of opposition and for good cause shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), plaintiffs' alternative motion to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) plaintiffs' motion to modify the November 20, 2014 Pretrial Scheduling Order and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and plaintiff's alternative motion for equitable and judicial estoppel is therefore moot;
(2) plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this Order;
(3) defendant shall file an answer or responsive motion within twenty-one (21) days of service of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12;
(4) a new Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference shall be set for February 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb;
(5) the parties shall submit a new Joint Status Report no later than February 2, 2016 pursuant to the court's February 10, 2014 Order (Docket No. 4);
(6) all discovery is hereby stayed pending the February 16, 2016 Scheduling Conference; and
(7) the Final Pretrial Conference set for January 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. and Trial set for March 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. are hereby VACATED. (Docket No. 25.) New dates will be assigned at the February 16, 2016 Scheduling Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
