Phillip W. Dunn v. Cate et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 8/10/2010 denying 62 Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Case With Leave to Amend the Complaint. (Lundstrom, T)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Matthew Cate, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P la in tif f 's Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Case With Leave to Amend (doc. 62) is n o t really a motion to dismiss his own case but a motion to vacate the prior discovery and d is p o s itiv e motion deadlines, now that Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary J u d g m e n t, and to start this case over with a new amended complaint. The motion is u tte rly without justification. All parties have had fair notice to prepare their case, and the o p p o s in g party would be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to abandon this case and start a n e w one. The Court's expenditure of substantial resources on this case would be wasted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw C a se With Leave to Amend (doc. 62) is denied. D A T E D this 10 th day of August, 2010. vs. P h illip Dunn, P la in tif f , ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . CV-08-0873-PHX-NVW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA