UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 10, 2008
ANTICANCER, INC., PLAINTIFF,
TECO DIAGNOSTICS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara L. Major United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINE AND TO AMEND ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 28]
On May 21, 2008, Defendants filed a Combined Motion to Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines and to Amend Answer to Second Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 28. A hearing date of June 23, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. was assigned, but the Court took the motion under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). See Doc. No. 29.
On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion to amend. Doc. No. 30.
In light of Plaintiff's lack of opposition, the good cause demonstrated by Defendants (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), and the Federal Rules' liberal policy in favor of granting leave to amend when justice so requires (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, , 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)), the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion. The Clerk's Office is hereby ORDERED to file the proposed Amended Answer to Second Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Roger N. Behle, Jr. [Doc. No. 28-4], separately as the operative Answer in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.