Upham v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter M. Fox et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF. The Application for Leave to Amend is denied, without prejudice to plaintiff's making a more particula rized showing, at a later date, as to why such leave should be afforded; any such showing shall include the submission of a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Vacate Case Management Conference is denied. Given the location of plaintif f's counsel, in Palm Springs, California, plaintiff may appear by telephone at the Case Management Conference. Plaintiff shall file a Case Management Conference Statement no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 2, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff's "Application for Leave to Amend; Motion to Vacate Case Management Conference; and Request for Court to Rule without Appearance of Counsel," filed January 29, 2009. Having read and considered plaintiff's filing, the Court finds plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for the relief requested. In particular, with respect to the Application for Leave to Amend, plaintiff has failed to submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint or otherwise to adequately explain the content or purpose of any proposed amendment. Further, with respect to the Motion to Vacate Case Management Conference, plaintiff has failed to explain why service of process has not yet been completed on any defendant. // v. HELENA FOX, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter M. Fox, Deceased, and as Guardian ad Litem for Rebecca H. Fox and Robert G. Fox, Minors, Defendants. / CHRISTOPHER UPHAM, Plaintiff, No. C-08-1859 MMC ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above1: 1. The Application for Leave to Amend is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff's making a more particularized showing, at a later date, as to why such leave should be afforded. Any such showing shall include the submission of a proposed Second Amended Complaint. 2. The Motion to Vacate Case Management Conference is hereby DENIED. 3. Given the location of plaintiff's counsel, in Palm Springs, California, plaintiff may appear by telephone at the Case Management Conference. 4. Plaintiff shall file a Case Management Conference Statement no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

Plaintiff's Request for Court to Rule without Appearance of Counsel is hereby GRANTED. 2

1