PEREZ v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, 14-cv-0989-PJH. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150625b67
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Plaintiffs' motion to sever the New York claims and dismiss the California claims remains pending before the court. Plaintiffs filed the motion on March 19, 2015, and on April 15, 2015, the court issued an order vacating the hearing and advising that it would not rule on the motion until the pleadings were settled. On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed the third
Summary: ORDER PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Plaintiffs' motion to sever the New York claims and dismiss the California claims remains pending before the court. Plaintiffs filed the motion on March 19, 2015, and on April 15, 2015, the court issued an order vacating the hearing and advising that it would not rule on the motion until the pleadings were settled. On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed the third a..
More
ORDER
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs' motion to sever the New York claims and dismiss the California claims remains pending before the court. Plaintiffs filed the motion on March 19, 2015, and on April 15, 2015, the court issued an order vacating the hearing and advising that it would not rule on the motion until the pleadings were settled. On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint ("TAC") on May 26, 2015, and defendants filed an answer to the TAC on June 12, 2015.
In view of the modifications reflected in the TAC, plaintiffs are hereby directed to file, no later than July 8, 2015, either a revised motion to sever (to reflect the correct status of the pleadings and the case) or a statement that they wish to stand on the motion as filed. Defendants shall respond two weeks thereafter with either an opposition to a new motion or a surreply should plaintiffs choose not to revise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
