Enns et al v. Flores et al

Filing 161

ORDER Regarding Court's April 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision Regarding 123 Motion to Amend signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 5/2/2011. (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint due 5/10/2011) (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 Jeffery L. Caufield, Esq. (SBN 166524) jeff@caufieldjames.com 2 Kenneth E. James, Esq. (SBN 173775) ken@caufieldjames.com 3 CAUFIELD & JAMES, LLP 2851 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 410 4 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 325-0441 Telephone 5 (619) 325-0231 Facsimile 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Enns Pontiac, Buick, & GMC Truck, Earl L. Enns & Esther 7 Enns as Trustees of the 2004 Enns Family Trust, Harold J. Enns & Patricia L. Enns as Trustees for the Family Trust 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ENNS PONTIAC, BUICK, & GMC ) TRUCK , a California Corporation; ) 13 EARL L. ENNS and ESTHER J. ) ENNS as Trustees of the 2004 Enns ) 14 Family Trust; and HAROLD J. ENNS ) and PATRICIA L. ENNS as Trustees ) 15 for the Family Trust, ) ) 16 Plaintiffs, ) ) 17 v. ) ) 18 ORELIA FLORES, an individual; ) THE ESTATE OF SIETO ) 19 YAMAGUCHI, deceased; MABEL ) LEE, an individual; THE ESTATE OF ) 20 HERBERT LEE, deceased; ) REEDLEY STEAM LAUNDRY; ) 21 REEDLEY DRY CLEANING ) WORKS; JOHN PEARCE, an ) 22 individual; PATTY MARTINEZ, an individual; and LOUIE MARTINEZ, 23 an individual. 24 NO: 1:07-CV-01043-OWW-DLB ORDER REGARDING COURT’S APRIL 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND. Hearing Date: April 18, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 3 Judge: Oliver W. Wanger Pre-Trial Conference: January 9, 2012 Defendants. 25 26 _____________________________ 27 28 ORDER REGARDING COURT’S APRIL 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 TO EACH PARTY AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 2 Pursuant to the Court’s April 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision Regarding 3 Motion to Amend, and having considered the motion, memorandum, declarations, 4 exhibits filed, and arguments made in connection with ENNS PONTIAC, BUICK, & 5 GMC TRUCK, EARL L. ENNS, AND ESTHER J. ENNS as Trustees of the 2004 6 Enns Family Trust, and HAROLD J. ENNS, and PATRICIA L. ENNS as Trustees 7 for the Family Trust, (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File a 8 Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Motion to Amend”), the Court 9 ORDERED the following: 10 1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is DENIED with respect to the addition of 11 RCRA claims; 12 2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is DENIED with respect to joining Ethel 13 Warnock, Bruce Warnock, Jesse Williams, Reynaldo Betancourt, and Floyd 14 Morse as Defendants; 15 3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is GRANTED with respect to adding the 16 personal representatives of deceased Defendants and with respect to 17 correction of spelling errors; 18 4) Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within five days of receiving 19 electronic service of this decision; 20 5) Defendants shall file responsive pleading within twenty days of receiving 21 electronic service of an amended complaint; and 22 6) Plaintiffs shall file a form of order consistent with this decision within five 23 days of receiving electronic service of this decision. 24 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is 25 GRANTED in part, as detailed above. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the proposed amended complaint, 27 28 1 ORDER REGARDING COURT’S APRIL 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is deemed to be the Second Amended 2 Complaint, and is deemed filed and served as of this date. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: May 2, 2011. /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER United States District Court Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER REGARDING COURT’S APRIL 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?