Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Public Storage Franchise

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 4, 2010

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PUBLIC STORAGE FRANCHISE, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PUBLIC STORAGE; PUBLIC STORAGE INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PUBLIC STORAGE; PS PROPERTIES IV LTD, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PUBLIC STORAGE; PS ORANGECO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PUBLIC STORAGE; AUBURN-WATT STORAGE PARTNERS, LTD, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES, IV, LTD, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PS PROPERTIES ADVISORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XVII, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; PARTNERS PREFERRED YIELD III INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; PUBLIC STORAGE INSTITUTIONAL FUND, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SHURGARD CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XV, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XIX, INC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; STORAGE EQUITIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; STORAGE EQUITIES/PS PARTNERS-FOLSOM, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; PUBLIC STORAGE PICKUP & DELIVERY, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES, V, LTD, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION

Pending is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint and to stay this case. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion and a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on February 21, 2010. Plaintiff lacked leave to file the FAC. However, Defendants acquiesce in allowing the FAC to be the operative complaint by stating in their Reply brief: "Because the initial complaint is no longer the operative complaint in this action, Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is moot." Therefore, Plaintiff is granted leave to file the FAC, and FAC is now operative complaint in this action.

Defendants, however, urge the Court in their Reply brief to use its discretion "in the interest of judicial economy [to] consider whether the flaws complained of in the motion to dismiss are perpetuated in the amended pleading." (Reply 1:6-9). For the sake of ensuring clarity of filings, this request is denied.

For the stated reasons, the FAC is the operative complaint, and Defendants' pending motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

Defendants also seek to stay this action pending decision on a class certification motion in another case. Since that motion should be considered in conjunction with the operative complaint, which was not filed when the motion was filed, the stay motion is also denied without prejudice.

20100304

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.