Rutherford et al v. MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Denying As Moot Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 17 and 18 . Plaintiff's shall file their amended complaint on or before July 23, 2010. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/1/10. (vet)

Download PDF
-AJB Rutherford et al v. MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc et al Doc. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On April 30, 2010, defendants Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Research, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences International, Inc. Iovate HC 2005 Formulations Ltd., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).1 On that same date, defendant GNC Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2 The hearing on both motions was set for July 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ________________________________ DEBRA RUTHERFORD, DANA CRAWFORD, MICHAEL MAGGARD, TRAVIS D. HORTON, Plaintiffs, vs. MUSCLETECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 09MD2087-BTM (AJB) NO. 10 CV673-BTM ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [09md2087 - Docket Entry 189] [09md2087 - Docket Entry 190] 09MD2087 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2, 2010. On June 18, 2010 (in 10cv673) and June 21, 2010 (in 09md2087), attorneys for plaintiffs Deborah Rutherford, Dana Crawford, Michael Maggard, and Travis D. Horton ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.3 On June 22, 2010, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response, if any, to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend.4 Pursuant to that order, Defendants filed a Response stating, "Defendants do not in principle oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend and therefore do not have any objection to Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint at this time," but that Plaintiff's proposed amendments only cured some and not all of the pleading defects.5 Upon review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court hereby orders as follows: 1. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. The scope of the leave granted is not limited to the amendments proposed by Plaintiffs, but shall be broad enough to permit Plaintiffs to make any and all amendments they deem appropriate or necessary to cure any defects alleged by Defendants. 3. The two pending Motions to Dismiss [09md2087 - Docket Entries 189 and 190] are DENIED as moot since the original complaint will no longer be the operative complaint once Plaintiffs file an amended complaint in this case. 4. Defendants' request for a stay of the briefing schedule relating to their motions to dismiss is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint on or before July 23, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 1, 2010 Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge 3 4 5 [09md2087 - Docket Entry 261]; [10cv673 - Docket Entry 24] [09md2087 - Docket Entry 266] [09md2087 - Docket Entry 274] 09MD2087

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?