From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trout v. Cnty. of Madera

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 16, 2021
21-cv-06061-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-06061-PJH

12-16-2021

KEITH TROUT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 71

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The court is in receipt of plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed in lieu of filing oppositions to defendants' various motions under 12(b), (e), and (f) at Dkt. 50 through 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 68, and 69. Given the length and breadth of the amended complaint, it is not immediately clear what amendments were made. Therefore, on or before December 22, 2021, plaintiff must file on the docket a redline comparison of the changes made from the original complaint (Dkt. 1) to the amended complaint (Dkt. 71).

The court intends to terminate defendants' responsive motions in light of the amended complaint. Defendants must give notice of whether (1) they intend to stand on their motions in light of the amended complaint or (2) they intend to terminate the motions and proceed on a different course. This applies to all motions to dismiss, strike, and transfer. Such notices are due on or before December 29, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Trout v. Cnty. of Madera

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 16, 2021
21-cv-06061-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Trout v. Cnty. of Madera

Case Details

Full title:KEITH TROUT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 16, 2021

Citations

21-cv-06061-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)

Citing Cases

Trout v. Cnty. of Madera

Finally, the Court notes Petitioner appears to suggest that the instant petition should be granted because…