1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTHEW JONES, Case No. 24-cv-08952-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 9 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO 10 SUGAHARA KISEN KK, et al., DISMISS 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 25, 30, 33

12 13 Plaintiff filed his original complaint against six named defendants on December 11, 2025, 14 then amended it two days later. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against 15 one defendant. Dkt. No. 29. Two defendants, Amports, Inc. and APS West Coast, Inc., have not 16 made an appearance in this Court. The other three defendants, Sugahara Kisen KK, Valero Refining 17 Company - California, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., have filed separate motions 18 to dismiss the first amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 13, 25, 30. The motions are set for hearing on 19 May 2, 2025 and briefing for these motions is ongoing. Dkt. Nos. 28, 30. Plaintiff has now moved 20 for leave to file a second amended complaint, also set for hearing on May 2, 2025. Dkt. No. 33. 21 The Court notes that even if the defendants were to succeed on their motions to dismiss, the 22 Court would likely grant plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. See Lopez v. Smith,

, 23 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, for the sake of judicial economy, the Court now GRANTS 24 plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The three motions to dismiss are 25 DISMISSED as moot. 26 Plaintiff must file his amended complaint by Friday, April 4, 2025. Once plaintiff files his 27 amended complaint the defendants may renew their motions to dismiss, using similar or new 1 defendants must respond to the amended complaint within fourteen days after service of the 2 || pleading. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 27, 2025 6 SUSAN ILLSTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28