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)

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