From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anticancer, Inc. v. Diagnostics

United States District Court, S.D. California
Jun 10, 2008
Case No. 07cv2294-L (BLM), [Doc. No. 28] (S.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 07cv2294-L (BLM), [Doc. No. 28].

June 10, 2008


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINE AND TO AMEND ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


On May 21, 2008, Defendants filed a Combined Motion to Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines and to Amend Answer to Second Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 28. A hearing date of June 23, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. was assigned, but the Court took the motion under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). See Doc. No. 29.

On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion to amend. Doc. No. 30.

In light of Plaintiff's lack of opposition, the good cause demonstrated by Defendants (Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4)), and the Federal Rules' liberal policy in favor of granting leave to amend when justice so requires (Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)), the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion. The Clerk's Office is hereby ORDERED to file the proposed Amended Answer to Second Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Roger N. Behle, Jr. [Doc. No. 28-4], separately as the operative Answer in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Anticancer, Inc. v. Diagnostics

United States District Court, S.D. California
Jun 10, 2008
Case No. 07cv2294-L (BLM), [Doc. No. 28] (S.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Anticancer, Inc. v. Diagnostics

Case Details

Full title:ANTICANCER, INC., Plaintiff, v. TECO DIAGNOSTICS, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Jun 10, 2008

Citations

Case No. 07cv2294-L (BLM), [Doc. No. 28] (S.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2008)