McGibney et al v. Retzlaff

Filing 63

ORDER Denying Administrative Motions, re 58 , 61 . Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 9/23/2014. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ODER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS

9
10

THOMAS RETZLAFF, et al.,

[Re: ECF 58, 61]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint;

13
14

Motion to Stay Consideration of Pleading-State Motions Pending Amendment,” filed September

15

19, 2014. Pl.’s Mot. ECF 58. Defendant Thomas Retzlaff opposes this motion. Retzlaff Opp.,

16

ECF 60. Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with any applicable federal or local rules, despite the

17

Court’s prior admonition to the parties that non-compliant motions would be summarily stricken

18

or denied. See Order, ECF 57. In any event, because defendant Lane Lipton’s motions are under

19

submission, it would be inefficient to permit Plaintiffs to amend before they receive the Court’s

20

order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s un-noticed motion, which this Court construes as a motion for

21

administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, is DENIED without prejudice. To the

22

extent leave to amend is permitted, it shall only be in accordance with this Court’s forthcoming

23

order.

24

Also before the Court is pro se defendant Retzlaff’s “Motion for Expedited Anti-SLAPP

25

Hearing,” filed September 22, 2014. Retzlaff Mot., ECF 61. To the extent this motion can be

26

construed as a request to expedite hearing on defendant Lipton’s anti-SLAPP motion, that motion

27

has already been submitted, and the Court will render a ruling on Lipton’s motion at the

28

appropriate time. To the extent Retzlaff seeks to expedite the hearing on his own anti-SLAPP

1

motion filed yesterday, he has not identified any substantial harm or prejudice warranting a change

2

in time. Retzlaff has also challenged service of process and this Court’s jurisdiction over him (see

3

ECF 23, 26) and this Court declines to rule on a special motion to strike under California law until

4

such time as it determines that the parties are properly in California. Defendant’s motion is

5

accordingly DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2