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)

Download PDF
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?