IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 31, 2011
LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, A MUNICIPALITY; AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On Monday August 29, 2011, Plaintiff's filed an "Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint[.]" (ECF No. 22) Plaintiff argues "it is in the interest of conserving the resources of both the parties and the Court to have" its Motion to Amend, currently scheduled for hearing on October 11, 2011, heard on the same date as a currently pending Motion to Dismiss now scheduled for hearing on September 12, 2011, since "the subject matter of both motions involves Plaintiff's operative pleading in the action[.]" Id. 4:5-7. Further, on August 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Stipulation in Support of Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint" which states: "the Parties believe it is in the interest of conserving the resources of both the parties and the Court to have the Motions heard concurrently." (ECF No. 26.)
"Applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time." E.D. Cal. R. 144(e). What the parties propose is not in the interest of conserving the judicial resources and is not sufficient justification for issuance of an order shortening time. A motion to amend should be heard prior to a motion to dismiss. Therefore, Plaintiff's Application for an Order Shortening Time is DENIED and the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) which is currently scheduled on September 12, 2011 is continued to December 5, 2011, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
Further, a review of the docket disclosed that Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 24, 2011 (docketed as ECF No. 16), without "the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2). Therefore, this First Amended Complaint is STRICKEN.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.