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.

Loay S. Naser v. Metropolitan Life Insurancecompany

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


August 30, 2011

LOAY S. NASER
PLAINTIFF,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCECOMPANY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS (Re: Docket No. 31)

On August 3, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file their Amended Answer and Counterclaims to add counterclaims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The 19 motion is styled as an administrative motion and was not noticed for a hearing. On August 17, 20 2011, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion is not a 21 request for administrative relief that can be brought pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and must comply 22 with Civil L.R. 7-2. 23 Civil L.R. 7-11 states that "[t]he Court recognizes that during the course of case 24 proceedings a party may require a Court order with respect to miscellaneous administrative 25 matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the 26 assigned judge." An administrative motion brought under Civil L.R. 7-11, compared to a motion 27 28 that complies with Civil L.R. 7-2, allows the non-moving party a shorter time-period and fewer 2 pages in which to oppose the motion and provides for no reply or oral argument. 3 Civil L.R. 7-11 because this matter is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In this instance, Fed. R. Civ. 5

A motion for leave to amend pleadings cannot be styled as an administrative motion under P. 15(a)(2) requires Defendants to seek leave of court because more than twenty-one days have 6 passed since Defendants served their Answer and Defendants do not have Plaintiff's written 7 consent to amend. Defendants are aware of this requirement and of the governing federal rule, and 8 they cite Rule 15(a) in their motion. Thus, this motion must comply with Civil L.R. 7-2*fn1 and is 9 procedurally defective in its current form. Accordingly, 10 bringing a motion that complies with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-2.

Dated:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion is DENIED without prejudice to their


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.