Ferrari, et al v. Autobahn, Inc. et al

Filing 180

ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND re 178 Notice of filing Redline of Fifth Amended Complaint filed by Steve Ferrari. Plaintiff Show Cause Response due by 2/25/2019. Defendant MBUSA reply filed 3/11/19. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/8/2019. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2019)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

STEVE FERRARI, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

vs.
MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL.,

CASE NO. 17-cv-00018-YGR
ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED FIFTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD
NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court HEREBY STRIKES the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”), filed

12

January 24, 2019 (Dkt. No. 178) as having been filed in direct violation of the Court’s limited

13

permission to file a red-line version of the operative complaint, striking out those portions of the

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

claims released by the settlement with the Autobahn defendants, and therefore no longer relevant
to claims against Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”).
Further, the Court issues this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the motion dismiss of
MBUSA (Dkt. 163) should not be granted with prejudice. MBUSA submits that the proposed
5AC effectively concedes that plaintiffs, in their Fourth Amended Complaint, have not stated a
claim as against MBUSA as additional allegations are necessary and such allegations directly
contradict those previously asserted and necessary to the basis of the settlement recently approved
by this Court. The Court tends to agree.
Plaintiffs shall file a written response to the Order to Show Cause by February 25, 2019.
Defendant MBUSA may file a reply by March 11, 2019. Each filing shall not exceed eight (8)

23

pages. Failure to file a response shall be deemed an admission that the granting of the motion with

24

prejudice is appropriate.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE