Bratt v. MGA Entertainment et al
Filing
19
ORDER Denying Motion To Set Aside Dismissal And For Leave To Amend[ECF No. 18 ]. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Huie on 09/25/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(stn)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRYAN MARSHALL BRATT,
Case No.: 22-cv-1984-RSH-WVG
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
MGA ENTERTAINMENT,
COMPOSITIONS OF MGA
ENTERTAINMENT, HOTEL PARADIS
MUSIC, JONATHAN GORDON,
DUSTIN EARL BROWN, and ALEX
GERINGAS,
15
16
17
18
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND
[ECF No. 18]
Defendants.
19
20
On July 6, 2023, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice. ECF No. 13. On
21
May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aide the dismissal and for leave to file an
22
amended complaint. ECF No. 18. Specifically, Plaintiff requests “[t]hat the Court vacate
23
its order of dismissal dated April 5, 2024,” and “[t]hat the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file
24
a Second Amended Complaint.” ECF No. 18 at 11.
25
The relief that Plaintiff requests refers to a separate and similar case, Bratt v. MGA
26
Entertainment et al., No. 23-cv-1457-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal.) (“Bratt II”), that Plaintiff filed
27
approximately two months after the Court dismissed this, his first, case. The Court in turn
28
1
22-CV-1984-RSH-WVG
1
dismissed Bratt II on April 5, 2024. In Bratt II, Plaintiff has filed a similar motion to set
2
aside the dismissal and for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court will separately
3
consider Plaintiff’s motion in Bratt II. However, inasmuch as Plaintiff has filed a motion
4
in Bratt I that seeks relief in Bratt II, the Court denies the motion.
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: September 25, 2024
8
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
22-CV-1984-RSH-WVG
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?