Flatten et al v. Smith et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD denying 42 Administrative Motion ; denying 44 Administrative Motion. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/17/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EZEKIAL FLATTEN, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 21-cv-07031-SI v. BRUCE SMITH, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 44 12 13 Plaintiffs have filed two administrative motions to supplement their oppositions to 14 defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs seek to add new information that they 15 contend supports their RICO claims against defendants. 16 The Court DENIES these motions, as the sufficiency of the complaint will be determined on 17 the allegations contained in the complaint and not on matters outside the pleadings. If plaintiffs 18 amend the complaint, plaintiffs may include the new information. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 17, 2021 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON 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?