Princeton Developments, LLC v. Baylor et al

Filing 79

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT FRANK LORENZO PAVLICOS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTS, LLC,

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
BRYNEE K. BAYLOR; BAYLOR &
JACKSON, PLLC; THE MILAN GROUP,
INC.; FRANK LORENZO; GPH
HOLDINGS, LLC; and PATRICK LEWIS,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12

________________________________/
KUMAN BANQUE, LLC,

15
16

v.
BRYNEE K. BAYLOR; BAYLOR &
JACKSON, PLLC; THE MILAN GROUP,
INC.; and FRANK LORENZO,
Defendants.

17
18

No. C 11-4472 CW

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER OVERRULING
DEFENDANT FRANK
LORENZO PAVLICO’S
OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO AMEND

Defendants.

10
11

No. C 11-4471 CW

________________________________/
On May 4, 2012, Plaintiffs Princeton Developments, LLC and

19
Kuman Banque LLC filed motions seeking leave to amend the
20
complaints in these related cases.
21
On May 23, 2012, having received no opposition, the Court
22
granted the motions and allowed Plaintiffs to file their first
23
amended complaints.
24
On June 1, 2012, Defendant Frank Lorenzo Pavlico filed a
25
document stating that he was not properly served with Plaintiffs’
26
motions and requesting permission to file oppositions to the
27
motions.
28

The Court granted Defendant’s request on June 6, 2012.

1

On June 19, 2012, Defendant filed his oppositions, arguing

2

that Plaintiffs will not be able to prove their claims ultimately

3

and that they have not offered evidence in support of the

4

allegations contained in their proposed first amended complaint.

5

Having considered Defendant’s oppositions, the Court finds no

6

cause to reconsider its May 23, 2012 Order.

7

evidentiary arguments are more properly addressed to a motion for

8

summary judgment, instead of a motion for leave to amend the

9

complaint.

Defendant’s

In the context of the instant motion, Plaintiffs were

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

not required to offer evidence in support of each allegation in

11

their proposed amended complaint.

12

oppositions are OVERRULED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Accordingly, Defendant’s

14
15
16

Dated:

6/26/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2