Creel v. iUniverse, Inc. et al
ORDER: denying without prejudice 48 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/22/09.(bnbcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 09-cv-01753-CMA-BNB CATHERINE CREEL, Plaintiff, v. iUNIVERSE, INC., AN Indiana corporation, AMAZON.COM, INC., a Washington corporation, BARNES & NOBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, BUYNOW, INC., a Delaware corporation, LULU ENTERPRISES, INC., a North Carolina corporation, LULU PRESS, INC., a North Carolina corporation ON-DEMAND PUBLISHING LLC, d/b/a CreateSpace, A Delaware limited liability company, TINO GEORGIOU, an individual, and K.G. Glaud, an individual, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. # 48, filed 10/19/2009] (the "Motion to Amend"). The Motion to Amend is DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal in a manner consistent with this Order. The plaintiff seeks leave to amend to "identify Tino Georgiou and K.G. Glaub as the same person, to correct the state of incorporation of Lulu Enterprises, Inc. and Lulu Press, Inc., and to delete Counts II, III, and IV." Motion to Amend at p. 1. A copy of the proposed second amended complaint is not attached as an exhibit to the Motion to Amend, however, nor has the proposed second amended complaint otherwise been submitted to the court. I will not grant a motion to amend in the abstract, and I require that any proposed amendment be submitted as an
exhibit to the motion to amend. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend is DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal in a manner consistent with this Order. Dated October 22, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate 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?