Feezor v. Pic N Save Corporation

Filing 28

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/20/11; After carefully considering the papers submitted in this matter, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint is G RANTED and Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #24, Exhibit A) is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. In light of this Court's May 23, 2011 order, the Third Amended Complaint is adopted as to PNS only. It is further ordered that within ten (10) days of this Order PNS's counsel shall either: (1) pay sanctions of $150.00 to the Clerk of the Court, or (2) submit a statement of good cause explaining their failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c). (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARY FEEZOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
PNS STORES, INC. dba BIG LOTS
#04105, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-00899 JAM-CMK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lary Feezor’s

18

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend his Second Amended Complaint pursuant

19

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16 (Doc. #24).

20

Defendant PNS Stores, Inc. dba BIG LOTS #04105 (“PNS”) did not

21

oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.1

22

Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Amend on May 4, 2011.

23

Subsequently, on May 23, 2011, this Court adopted a stipulation of

24

dismissal and ordered Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

25

dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants West Lane Properties,

26

Inc. and Metzger Management Company (Doc. #26).

27
1

28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was originally
scheduled for July 20, 2011.
1

1

PNS, the only remaining Defendant in this case, did not file

2

a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

3

Local Rule 230(c) requires a party responding to a motion to file

4

either an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-

5

opposition, no less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed

6

hearing date.

7

sanctions for “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with

8

these Rules.”

9

$150.00 unless they show good cause for their failure to comply

10

Local Rule 110 authorizes the Court to impose

Therefore, the Court will sanction PNS’ counsel

with the Local Rules.

11
12

ORDER

13

After carefully considering the papers submitted in this

14

matter, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the

15

Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Third Amended

16

Complaint (Doc. #24, Exhibit A) is deemed filed as of the date of

17

this Order.

18

Amended Complaint is adopted as to PNS only.

19

In light of this Court’s May 23, 2011 order, the Third

It is further ordered that within ten (10) days of this Order

20

PNS’s counsel shall either: (1) pay sanctions of $150.00 to the

21

Clerk of the Court, or (2) submit a statement of good cause

22

explaining their failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2011

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2