Filed: Jun. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Carl A. Wescott filed his first amended complaint in March 2018. On May 14, defendants Gila, Inc., doing business as Municipal Services Bureau, Carlson & Messer LLP, Tamar Gabriel, and David Kaminsky removed this case to federal court. Defendants then moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety. Both parties were ordered to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court.
Summary: ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Carl A. Wescott filed his first amended complaint in March 2018. On May 14, defendants Gila, Inc., doing business as Municipal Services Bureau, Carlson & Messer LLP, Tamar Gabriel, and David Kaminsky removed this case to federal court. Defendants then moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety. Both parties were ordered to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court. ..
More
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Carl A. Wescott filed his first amended complaint in March 2018. On May 14, defendants Gila, Inc., doing business as Municipal Services Bureau, Carlson & Messer LLP, Tamar Gabriel, and David Kaminsky removed this case to federal court. Defendants then moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety. Both parties were ordered to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court.
It does not appear that there was a violation of the pre-filing order because plaintiff did get approval from the presiding judge in state court to file the initial complaint and the pre-filing order did not require subsequent amendments to be approved. Moreover, Section 472(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend his pleading once without leave of the court.
So far, plaintiff is not a vexatious litigant in this court and the undersigned judge will proceed to hear the pending motion to dismiss on its merits. To date, however, plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dismiss by JUNE 25, 2018, AT NOON. Defendants' reply to plaintiff's response is due by JULY 6, 2018, AT NOON. The hearing for the motion to dismiss remains on JULY 19TH, 2018, AT 8:00 AM.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
