Opinion
Harout Bagdasaryan, Plaintiff, Pro se, Tujunga, CA.
Masis Bagdasaryan, Plaintiff, Pro se, Tujunga, CA.
For City of Los Angeles, Defendant: Tayo A Popoola, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative for More Definite Statement (D.E. #9)
HON. ROBERT N. BLOCK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The Court notes that plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed herein on June 19, 2015, does not include a proof of service page, as required by Local Rule 5-3.1. Plaintiffs are ordered to rectify this oversight by immediately filing a proof of service evidencing their service of the Second Amended Complaint on counsel for defendant City of Los Angeles.
Since it appears to the Court that the Second Amended Complaint rectifies at least some of the pleading deficiencies raised by defendant in its Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, the Court deems defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss to now be moot. If defendant believes that the Second Amended Complaint still suffers from pleading deficiencies, defendant will need to file another Motion to Dismiss that specifically is directed to the factual allegations and claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
Defendant is ordered to respond to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of the service thereof.