Barrilleaux v. Mendicino County et al
Filing
66
ORDER re: 62 Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses. Briefing deadlines are suspended, and hearing date is vacated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/23/15. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
JESSICA BARRILLEAUX,
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
v.
MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-01373-TEH
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Defendants.
9
10
At the December 7, 2015 case management conference, the Court ordered Plaintiff
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Jessica Barrilleaux to re-file her motion to strike affirmative defenses on or before
12
December 21, 2015. Barrilleaux filed her motion on December 18, 2015, making the
13
opposition due on January 4, 2016, and the reply due on January 11, 2016.
14
Also at the December 7, 2015 case management conference, the Court ordered the
15
parties to meet and confer regarding whether Barrilleaux should be allowed leave to amend
16
her complaint. The Court directed the parties to file a stipulation, or Barrilleaux to file a
17
motion for leave to amend if no agreement could be reached, by January 7, 2016. If
18
Barrilleaux files an amended complaint, then Defendants will need to file a new answer,
19
rendering moot the motion to strike affirmative defenses from the current answer.
20
Accordingly, to conserve the parties’ resources, the Court now suspends the
21
briefing deadlines and vacates the hearing on Barrilleaux’s motion to strike affirmative
22
defenses. A revised schedule will be set, as necessary, once it is determined whether
23
Barrilleaux will be filing an amended complaint.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: 12/23/15
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
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?