Opinion
22-cv-01591-AMO
03-07-2024
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
RE: DKT. NO. 89, 114, 119
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 29, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike portions of Plaintiffs' complaint, Plaintiffs' administrative motion to enlarge time and supplement the pleadings, and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. ECF 132. For the reasons set forth on the record during the hearing, Plaintiffs' administrative motion to enlarge time and supplement the pleadings and their motion for leave to amend are DENIED, the portion of Defendants' motion seeking dismissal of individual officials is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED, as is Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
As to the portion of Defendants' motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of contract and Equal Protection claims, in light of Defendants' notice withdrawing arguments advanced in connection with the breach of contract claim and the concerns the Court noted during the hearing as to the briefing on the Equal Protection claims, the motion is DENIED. The County may renew its legal arguments in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in a motion for summary judgment, as appropriate, after ensuring that the arguments contained in any such motion are fully developed and supported by applicable legal authority.
The Court reminds counsel that briefing gives them an opportunity to advocate on behalf of their respective clients. Using briefing to engage in a tit for tat with the opposing party does not aid the Court resolve the legal questions at bar, nor is it the best use of attorney time, client time, or the Court's time, particularly where the Plaintiffs have seemingly not settled on the bases for their legal claims, and Defendants seemingly lack clarity on the reasons why those claims fail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.