Palma v. Homecomings et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 13, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (fj, COURT STAFF).

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 By order filed December 29, 2008, the Court dismissed plaintiff Mirla Palma's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), for the reason such plaintiff failed to state therein a claim upon which relief could be granted, and dismissed the action, finding that affording plaintiff further leave to amend would be futile. In said order, the Court also observed that the SAC was subject to being stricken, because plaintiff had failed to file a motion to amend; the Court nonetheless "exercise[d] its discretion to consider the SAC on the merits, in the interests of judicial economy." (See Order, filed December 29, 2008, at 1.) Now before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion for Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration," filed January 6, 2009. Plaintiff, acknowledging therein that she should have sought permission to file the SAC, seeks permission to file a motion "so that she may file the amended second amended complaint." To the extent plaintiff is seeking leave to file the SAC, the motion is hereby DENIED as moot, because the Court, as noted, did consider v. HOMECOMINGS, et. al., Defendants / MIRLA PALMA, Plaintiff, No. C-08-4780 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 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

the SAC on its merits and did not strike the SAC. To the extent plaintiff is seeking leave to amend the SAC, i.e., to file a Third Amended Complaint, the motion is hereby DENIED, as plaintiff has failed to show any cognizable basis exists to reconsider the Court's finding that further amendment would be futile. Also before the Court is plaintiff's "Affidavit in Support of Opposition to [Defendants'] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim," filed January 6, 2009. Defendants, however, have not filed a motion to dismiss. Finally, in light of the final judgment entered December 29, 2008, the February 20, 2009 Case Management Conference is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2