Opinion
8:20-cv-01782-JVS-KES
10-21-2021
Frank Falat v. Rodney Cyril Sacks et al.
Present: James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
Before the Court is a motion for entry of final judgment filed by Individual Defendants Rodney Cyril Sacks, Hilton Hiller Schlosberg, Thomas J. Kelly, Emelie C. Tirre, Mark J. Hall, Kathleen E. Ciaramello, Gary P. Fayard, Jeanne P. Jackson, Steven G. Pizula, Benjamin M. Polk, Sydney Selati, and Mark S. Vidergauz, and Nominal Defendant Monster Beverage Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). Mot. for Entry of Final J., Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff Frank Falat ("Falat") opposed the motion. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 58. Defendants replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 59.
On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff Frank Falat filed a Complaint against the Defendants. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. On December 28, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which set the last day to amend the pleadings as August 30, 2021. Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 21. On April 8, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. Order re Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 45. On August 30, 2021, the last day on which Falat could amend the Complaint, Falat filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue Deadlines Set Forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, which the Court denied. Order re Ex Parte Appl., Dkt. No. 56. Falat did not file an amended complaint by August 30, 2021.
Contrary to Falat's assertion, the Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss did not grant Falat an open-ended deadline to file an amended complaint. See Order re Mot. to Dismiss. The Order did not modify the existing August 30, 2021 deadline to file an amended complaint. See id. In fact, in his Ex Parte Application to Continue Deadlines Set Forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, Falat moved to continue the August 30, 2021 deadline by six months on the basis that the deadline "appear[s] to conflict" with the alleged open-ended extension to file an amended complaint. Ex Parte Appl., Dkt. No. 54, at 3. As stated above, the Court denied the application. Order re Ex Parte Appl.
This action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.