Athena Feminine Technologies Inc. v. Wilkes et al
Filing
170
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 150 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
OAKLAND DIVISION
8
ATHENA FEMININE TECHNOLOGIES
Case No: C 10-4868 SBA
9 INC.,
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
12 DEREK WILKES, PELFIT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL AND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Dkt. 150
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MORTON
13 CORDELL, SILK ROAD ASSOCIATES,
LLC, SIMON FAN and KING CHAMPION
14 (HONG KONG) LTD.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
On February 6, 2013, the Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
19
Leave to File a Supplemental and Amended Complaint. See Athena Feminine Techs. Inc.
20
v. Wilkes, No. 10-4868 SBA, 2013 WL 450147 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013), Dkt. 147. The
21
Court found that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments were impermissibly vague and
22
conclusory, and that “permitting amendment at this late stage of the litigation would be
23
unduly prejudicial to Defendants.” Id., *3. On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant
24
renewed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental and Amended Complaint which is
25
largely identical to its prior motion. Dkt. 150.
26
Plaintiff’s renewed motion is, at its core, a motion for reconsideration. Before filing
27
a motion for reconsideration, the movant must first seek leave to do so under Civil Local
28
Rule 7-9. Plaintiff has not complied with this requirement and the instant motion otherwise
1
fails to make the requisite showing under Local Rule 7-9. The Court may summarily deny
2
motions that are not filed in compliance with the Court’s local rules. See Tri-Valley
3
CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion
4
as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s
5
discretion.”).
6
Setting aside Plaintiff’s inexplicable failure to comply with the Local Rules, the
7
Court is not inclined to permit Plaintiff to file a supplemental pleading in any event.
8
Although Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental pleading addresses some of the vagueness
9
concerns expressed by the Court in its prior order, the fact remains that allowing the
10
amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would be unduly prejudicial to Defendants.
11
Athena Feminine Techs., 2013 WL 450147, *3. Accordingly,
12
13
14
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental and Amended Complaint is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 150.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2013
________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?