Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 17-cv-00018-YGR. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190211962 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court HEREBY STRIKES the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"), filed January 24, 2019 (Dkt. No. 178) as having been filed in direct violation of the Court's limited permission to file a red-line version of the operative complaint, striking out those portions of the claims released by the settlement with th
More

ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court HEREBY STRIKES the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"), filed January 24, 2019 (Dkt. No. 178) as having been filed in direct violation of the Court's limited permission to file a red-line version of the operative complaint, striking out those portions of the claims released by the settlement with the Autobahn defendants, and therefore no longer relevant to claims against Mercedes Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA").

Further, the Court issues this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the motion dismiss of MBUSA (Dkt. 163) should not be granted with prejudice. MBUSA submits that the proposed 5AC effectively concedes that plaintiffs, in their Fourth Amended Complaint, have not stated a claim as against MBUSA as additional allegations are necessary and such allegations directly contradict those previously asserted and necessary to the basis of the settlement recently approved by this Court. The Court tends to agree.

Plaintiffs shall file a written response to the Order to Show Cause by February 25, 2019. Defendant MBUSA may file a reply by March 11, 2019. Each filing shall not exceed eight (8) pages. Failure to file a response shall be deemed an admission that the granting of the motion with prejudice is appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer