Dzebic v. Roanoke Companies Group, Inc. et al

Filing 270

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 268 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying 268 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2011: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
HILMIJA DZEBIC,
Plaintiff,

No. C 10-2363 PJH

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.

ORDER

12
13

ROANOKE COMPANIES GROUP, INC.,
et al.,

14

Defendant.
_______________________________/

15
16

The court is in receipt of a motion by plaintiff Hilmija Dzebic to consolidate this

17

product liability action with another action – presumably the related case No. C-10-2364 –

18

and a motion for leave to file an amended “class action” complaint. The motions are

19

DENIED. As stated in the order filed in case C-10-2364 concurrently with this order, little

20

remains to be decided in that case. In addition, the deadline for seeking leave to amend

21

has already passed, and plaintiff has articulated no good cause for permitting amendment.

22

At the point at which this case was transferred from the Northern District of Georgia,

23

fact discovery had closed and the case was ready for trial. Following plaintiff’s counsel’s

24

withdrawal from the case, plaintiff was given more than six months to locate new counsel.

25

Nevertheless, he failed to do so.

26

At the April 21, 2011 case management conference, the case was set for trial on

27

November 14, 2011. In the case management and pretrial order that was issued on May 2,

28

2011, the expert discovery cut-off date was set for June 15, 2011, and the pretrial

1

conference date was set for October 13, 2011. The parties are required to meet and confer

2

regarding preparation of the joint pretrial statement no later than September 8, 2011, and

3

pretrial papers are required to be filed no later than September 14, 2011.

4

Given that pretrial papers are due less than three weeks from the date of this order,

5

plaintiff’s assertion that defendants will not be prejudiced by the filing of an amended

6

complaint, and that “the parties still have time to conduct additional discovery,” is

7

nonsensical.

8
9

Dated: August 29, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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