Marcus Gray et al v. Katy Perry et al

Filing 171

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: In light of the Court's previous order extending the deadline to seek leave to amend the pleadings, the 11/7/2016, hearing date is vacated and plaintiffs' motion for leave 158 is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the proposed Third Amended Complaint forthwith. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS (JCx)

Title

MARCUS GRAY; ET AL. V. KATHERYN ELIZABETH HUDSON; ET
AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’
November 1, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Filed September 27,
2016, Dkt. 158)

The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint (“TAC”), which was filed on September 27, 2016. Dkt. 158. It appears that
plaintiffs’ original motion was noticed for the incorrect hearing date. However, on
September 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended motion which provided notice that the
hearing would take place on November 7, 2016, at 10:00am. Dkt. 161.
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7–15. Accordingly, the hearing date of November 7, 2016,
is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On September 7, 2016, the Court extended the deadline for seeking leave to amend
pleadings and add parties from July 31, 2016, until September 30, 2016. Dkt. 156.
Plaintiffs’ TAC appears to add several parties to the complaint. The defendants do not
oppose plaintiffs’ motion, but have nonetheless filed a “response.” Dkt. 164-65. It
appears that the parties dispute claims made in the factual background to plaintiffs’
memorandum. See Defendant’s Response, Dkt. 164 (Defendants do not oppose the
motion, but “find it necessary to submit this brief statement to correct certain

CV-5642 (11/1)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-05642-CAS (JCx)

November 1, 2016

Title

MARCUS GRAY; ET AL. V. KATHERYN ELIZABETH HUDSON; ET
AL.

misstatements in Plaintiffs’ motion”). The present motion does not appear to require any
resolution of the parties’ factual dispute, which appears to relate to discovery.
Plaintiffs’ motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave should be “freely” given. In light of the
Court’s previous order extending the deadline to seek leave to amend the pleadings, the
November 7, 2016, hearing date is vacated and plaintiffs’ motion for leave is
GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the proposed TAC, Dkt. 158-1, forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-5642 (11/1)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

00
CMJ

Page 2 of 2