From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paddock v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 24, 2015
CV 14-06053 SJO (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)

Opinion

          COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Not Present.

          COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Not Present.


          PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER DISMISSING CASE

          S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On December 22, 2014, Defendants DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (" DreamWorks"), Lewis W. Coleman, and Jeffrey Katzenberg's (collectively, " Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss (" Motion"). On April 1, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Motion with a fifteen-day leave to amend. ( See Order, ECF No. 56.) On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund filed a Notice of Intent Not to Amend. (Notice, ECF No. 57.)

         The deadline to amend the Complaint has passed, and no amended complaint has been filed. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case for failure to prosecute. This matter shall close.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Paddock v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 24, 2015
CV 14-06053 SJO (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Paddock v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Charles Paddock v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., et al

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 24, 2015

Citations

CV 14-06053 SJO (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)