Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • LIBERI V TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 441 - MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE - Gov - Uscourts.cacd.497989.441.0

    Uploaded by

    Jack Ryan
    25 views1 page
    12/01/2011 441 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE Plaintiffs filed a request (Request) for leave to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Any such amendments should have been made long ago. This case has been pending since May 2009. Trial is fast approaching in June 2012, and there is at least one pending Motion to Dismiss based on the current First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as eight filed Answers. While the FAC is unwieldy, the Court has already ruled that it is not per se deficient. The Court finds that filing a Second Amended Complaint at this late date would delay rather than promote the efficient resolution of this case. The Court DENIES the Request. (ade) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

    Original Title

    LIBERI v TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 441 - MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.441.0

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    12/01/2011 441 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE Plaintiffs filed a request (Request) for leave to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Any such amendments should have been made long ago. This case has been pending since May 2009. Trial is fast approaching in June 2012, and there is at least one pending Motion to Dismiss based on the current First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as eight filed Answers. While the FAC is unwieldy, the Court has already ruled that it is not per se deficient. The Court finds that filing a Second Amended Complaint at this late date would delay rather than promote the efficient resolution of this case. The Court DENIES the Request. (ade) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views1 page

    LIBERI V TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 441 - MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE - Gov - Uscourts.cacd.497989.441.0

    Uploaded by

    Jack Ryan
    12/01/2011 441 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE Plaintiffs filed a request (Request) for leave to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Any such amendments should have been made long ago. This case has been pending since May 2009. Trial is fast approaching in June 2012, and there is at least one pending Motion to Dismiss based on the current First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as eight filed Answers. While the FAC is unwieldy, the Court has already ruled that it is not per se deficient. The Court finds that filing a Second Amended Complaint at this late date would delay rather than promote the efficient resolution of this case. The Court DENIES the Request. (ade) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 441

    Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:10224

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx) LISA LIBERI, et al. v. ORLY TAITZ, et al. Date December 1, 2011

    Present: The Honorable Lisa Bredahl Deputy Clerk

    ANDREW J. GUILFORD Not Present Court Reporter / Recorder

    Tape No.

    Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

    Attorneys Present for Defendants:

    Proceedings:

    [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

    Plaintiffs filed a request (Request) for leave to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Any such amendments should have been made long ago. This case has been pending since May 2009. Trial is fast approaching in June 2012, and there is at least one pending Motion to Dismiss based on the current First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as eight filed Answers. While the FAC is unwieldy, the Court has already ruled that it is not per se deficient. The Court finds that filing a Second Amended Complaint at this late date would delay rather than promote the efficient resolution of this case. The Court DENIES the Request. : Initials of Preparer lmb 0

    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

    You might also like