Amend (ECF No. 100) on March 28, 2014 (hereinafter
(Consent) Emergency Motion
). ECF No. 117. Undersigned counsel was emergently admitted to the hospital on Thursday, March 27, 2014 and was unable to file an Opposition on DBCS
behalf by the agreed upon deadline of March 28, 2014. While this Court has not yet ruled upon this (Consent) Emergency Motion, the agreed upon deadline between Plaintiff and DBCS for DBCS
Opposition is March 31, 2014. Thus, DBCS files this Opposition in accordance with that agreement while awaiting a ruling from this Court.
The First Amended Complaint (hereinafter
) is 50 pages long and contains 214 paragraphs. Pl.
s Am. Compl., ECF No. 2. Thirteen defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss as a result of the FAC. ECF Nos. 5, 8, 11, 16, 41, 50, 83 and 87. On February 21, 2014, this Court allowed Plaintiff to seek leave to amend his FAC. Letter Order, ECF No. 88. In doing so, this Court advised Plaintiff that this would be his last opportunity to amend, and that failure to comply with Local Rule 103.6 would result in Plaintiff
s Motion to Amend being denied by the Clerk.
at 5. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend on March 7, 2014 and attached copies of his proposed Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter
). The SAC, instead of clarifying the allegations of the FAC, exacerbates both the redundancy and convolution of the FAC. The SAC is 82 pages and 285 paragraphs long, names three new defendants, and adds entirely new theories of the case, unsupported statements alleged as facts, and causes of action not present in the FAC. Further, Plaintiff does little to remove
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter
from the text, as had been ordered by this Court.
Case Management Order
at ¶ B.12, ECF No. 97. Indeed, Plaintiff
s SAC contains multiple paragraphs which are immaterial and irrelevant to his alleged causes of action against the defendants.
for example, Plaintiff
s SAC, at ¶¶ 33-37.
!"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 ((& 9:;$< -)=)(=(> 0"?$ A 4@ (-