Kelley v. Allen, et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/22/2010 ORDERING 12 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DEEMED filed as of the date on which this order is filed; and defendants' dismissal motion is DENIED as MOOT. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
Kelley v. Allen, et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KATHRYN ANN KELLEY, Plaintiff, v. LARRY ALLEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SIERRA COUNTY individually; SARAH WRIGHT, individually and in her capacity as VICTIM WITNESS ADVOCATE OF THE COUNTY OF SIERRA; and THE COUNTY OF SIERRA, Defendants. ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-00557-GEB-DAD ORDER* Defendants Larry Allen, Sarah Wright, and The County of Sierra ("Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's original Complaint on August 25, 2010. (Docket No. 12.) Defendants originally filed a similar dismissal motion on June 11, 2010, but the Court deemed the motion withdrawn since Plaintiff indicated she would file an amended complaint, and stated it could be renoticed for hearing if Plaintiff failed to file a First Amended Complaint as she indicated. (Order July 13, 2010 1:23-26.) Defendants subsequently renoticed the motion, and Plaintiff thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 12, 13.) argument. This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral E.D. Cal. R. 230(g). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff lacked leave of court to file her amended complaint. However, Defendants have not contested Plaintiff's attempt to amend her original Complaint; instead Defendants have stated they intend to file another motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Joint Status Report Sept. 20, 2010 2:11-19.) Therefore, in light of the congested nature of this Court's law and motion and trial calendars, and in the interest of avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources and briefing on a motion for leave to amend that does not appear necessary under the circumstances, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date on which this order is filed. Accordingly, Defendants' August 25, 2010 dismissal motion is denied as moot. Dated: September 22, 2010 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 2

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?