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-