Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc
Filing
227
ORDER Granting 182 Second Motion to Amend/Correct Third-Party Complaint, Granting 186 Motion to Expedite . Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SAP, Case Administrator)
Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc
Doc. 227
Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS
Document 227
Filed 12/01/2005
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JAMES S. GORDON, JR., an individual residing in Benton County, Washington, Plaintiff,
No. CV-04-5125-FVS ORDER
v. IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC.,a Nevada Corporation, Defendant. IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, BONNIE GORDON, JAMES S. GORDON, III, JONATHAN GORDON, JAMILA GORDON, ROBERT PRITCHETT and EMILY ABBEY, Third-Party Defendants.
BEFORE THE COURT is the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.'s Second Motion to Amend/Correct ThirdParty Complaint. The Court notes that the Third-Party Defendants
have not yet filed their Answers to the Complaint and their Motions to Dismiss have not yet bet heard by the Court. Further, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Impulse Marketing Group, Accordingly,
ORDER - 1
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS
Document 227
Filed 12/01/2005
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
Inc.'s Second Motion to Amend/Correct Third-Party Complaint, Ct. Rec. 182, is GRANTED. 2. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite,
Ct. Rec. 186, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby
directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel and to the pro se third-party defendants. DATED this 1st day of December, 2005. s/ Fred Van Sickle Fred Van Sickle United States District Judge
ORDER - 2
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?