Knoles v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al
Filing
68
ORDER GRANTING 65 PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT PENDING DISPOSITION OF 66 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR FICTITIOUSLY NAMED DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/1/2019.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2019)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
SAN JOSE DIVISION
5
6
MARLESSA KNOLES,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-06580-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT PENDING DISPOSITION
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR
FICTITIOUSLY NAMED DEFENDANT
[Re: ECF 65]
12
13
14
Plaintiff has filed an Ex Parte Application for Extension to File Amended Complaint
15
(ECF 65), seeking extension of the February 22, 2019 deadline for amendment of her pleading
16
until the Court disposes of her Motion to Substitute True Name for Fictitiously Named Defendant
17
(ECF 66), which is set for hearing on May 23, 2019. Plaintiff asserts that that “Paragard IUD” is a
18
necessary party to the litigation; it would be futile to amend her complaint without adding
19
Paragard IUD as a defendant; and this Court’s order dismissing her complaint with leave to amend
20
prohibits her from adding new parties without express leave of the Court.
21
Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time is GRANTED. In granting the extension,
22
the Court has not evaluated the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add Paragard
23
IUD as a party. The Court has determined only that the latter motion should be resolved before
24
any amended pleading is filed.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: March 1, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
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?