Lindblad v. Bolanos

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 21-cv-06606-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 51, 54 10 CARLOS G. BOLANOS, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 Before the Court are several pending motions: (1) Defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint, Dkt. No. 46; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, Dkt. No. 50; (3) Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena video evidence, Dkt. No. 51; and (4) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to oppose defendant’s motion, Dkt. No. 54. The Court orders as follows: 18 (1) Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 46 – MOOT 19 Because the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, defendant’s motion to dismiss is moot. The motion hearing scheduled for March 25, 2022 is accordingly VACATED. The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for March 25, 2022 is CONTINUED to April 22, 2022 at 2:30pm.

24 (2) Motion to Amend, Dkt. No. 50 – GRANTED 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) gave plaintiff 21 days after defendant’s filing of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint “as a matter of course.” Because more than 21 days have passed, plaintiff now requests leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

1 pertinent issues,” Dkt. No. 50 ¥ 3, address “‘a multiplicity of documents submitted by the defendants || counsel,” id. | 4, and “perfect...jurisdictional issues.” Jd. 4] 8. Although the motion is vague and || difficult to follow, Rule 15(a)(2) requires this Court to “freely give leave when justice so requires.”

4 || While the court may deny the motion “if permitting an amendment would, among other things, cause an undue delay in the litigation or prejudice the opposing party,” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court cannot conclude that an amended complaint would cause delay or prejudice defendants. The motion for leave to amend the complaint is accordingly GRANTED. The amended complaint is due no later than March 18, 2022 — the date || indicated in plaintiff's motion. Because plaintiff has had ample time to review the arguments raised || in defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court does not anticipate granting further leave to amend in 11 the event the Court finds merit to a subsequent motion to dismiss.

13 (3) Motion to Subpoena, Dkt. No. 51 - DENIED 14 Discovery requests and subpoenas are not appropriate prior to occurrence of an Initial Case 15 Management Conference. In this case, the Initial CMC was scheduled for March 25, 2022 and is a 16 || now scheduled for April 22, 2022 . The Motion to Subpoena is thus premature and will be DENIED.

18 (4) Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. No. 54 -MOOT 19 Because the Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, and finds the pending motion || to dismiss moot, plaintiff's request for additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss is also 21 moot.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: March 16, 2022 Stn Ml ee 7 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge