Lucido v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Company
Filing
100
ORDER Re 99 Plaintiffs' Letter of June 3, 2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/6/2016. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FRANK LUCIDO, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
10
NESTLE PURINA PET CARE COMPANY,
For the Northern District of California
13
14
Docket No. 99
Defendant.
11
12
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF
JUNE 3, 2016
v.
9
United States District Court
Case No. 15-cv-00569-EMC
The Court has reviewed the letter from Plaintiffs, dated June 3, 2016. Based on that letter,
the Court hereby rules as follows.
1.
Ms. Phillips, Mr. Carlson, and Ms. Kimball shall have until July 29, 2016, to make
15
a decision as to whether they will pursue individual claims for recovery of losses in terms of
16
reimbursement of medical or burial expenses, value of lost pets, etc.
17
2.
Plaintiffs shall have until July 29, 2016, to file an amended complaint. The
18
amendment is permitted solely to reflect Plaintiffs’ decision not to pursue individual claims for
19
recovery of losses in terms of reimbursement of medical or burial expenses, value of lost pets, etc.
20
If any of the three individuals identified above still elect to pursue such recovery, that should also
21
be reflected in the amended complaint.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: June 6, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
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?
