Hall v. Mastec North America, Inc.

Full title: JOHNNY HALL v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC

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

Date published: Feb 25, 2015

EDCV 14-02048-VAP (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015)

Opinion

JOHNNY HALL v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC No. EDCV 14-02048-VAP (DTBx) United States District Court, C.D. California February 25, 2015

          PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD RULE ON A MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN THE AMENDED PLEADING HAS NOT BEEN FILED ON THE DOCKET (IN CHAMBERS)

          HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Court granted Plaintiff Johnny Hall's motion for leave to amend his complaint on January 23, 2015. (Doc. No. 29.) Hall attached a proposed amended complaint to his motion for leave to amend, but has not filed the amended pleading on the docket since receiving permission to do so.

         Defendant Mastec North America, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss portions of the proposed amended pleading on February 6, 2015. (Doc. No. 30.) Of course, Hall cannot pursue any of the claims he proposed to add, and Mastec cannot move for their dismissal, until the amended pleading has been filed on the case's docket.

         The Court orders Hall to file his amended complaint if he wishes to pursue the legal theories it asserts. Upon the filing of the amended complaint, the Court shall address the arguments raised by Mastec in its motion to dismiss; no further briefing is required by either party.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.