Rezn8 Systems Inc et al v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 45

ORDER re 35 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed by Nancy O'Malley, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Matt Beltramo, Rick Monge. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 6/17/2010. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REZN8 SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND BROWN, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the above-entitled action on April 27, 2010, and also filed an application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a request for an order to show cause re preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2010, the court denied the application for the TRO and the request for the order to show cause. Also on May 12, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the order denying the TRO application. On May 19, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an order directing plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 25, 2010, defendants filed a motion with this court, seeking an order dismissing the complaint. The motion is presently noticed for hearing on June 30, 2010. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was due on June 9, 2010. Rather than filing an opposition to defendants' motion, however, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on June 11, 2010. Defendants' reply to the opposition was due on June 16, 2010, but none was filed. The court has not reviewed defendants' motion, and thus makes no finding as to No. C 10-1799 PJH ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

whether the first amended complaint resolves the issues raised by defendants. The court finds, however, that the interests of judicial economy will be better served if defendants immediately withdraw the motion, and respond instead to the first amended complaint, by filing responsive pleadings or motions to dismiss no later than 14 days after the Ninth Circuit determines whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' appeal of the order denying the TRO application.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2