American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc.

E.D. California

American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 17, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00643

StatusUnknown

This text of American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc. (American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALORNIA 10

11 AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE Case No. 1:23-cv-00643-NODJ-CDB COMPANY, 12 ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 14 (Doc. 32) ESG REPUBLIC, INC., ESG REPUBLIC II, 15 LLC, WORKLOGIC HR INSURANCE JANUARY 22, 2024, DEADLINE SERVICES LLC, BRADLEY C. BURKS, 16 JEFFREY D. THORN, VENSURE HR, INC. and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on April 27, 2023. (Doc. 1). 20 On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the now-operative first amended complaint. (Doc. 11). 21 Pursuant to the scheduling order entered in this action, any motions to amend the 22 pleadings were to be filed by January 13, 2024. (Doc. 21 at 3). The scheduling order further 23 provides: 24 All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause 25 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth 26 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) 27 prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 28 1 || Id. 2 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to permit Plaintiff to file a 3 ||second amended complaint. (Doc. 32). Although the filing was made several days after the 4 || deadline to request leave to file an amended pleading, the Court had considered the Foman 5 || factors set forth above and finds good cause to grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended 6 || complaint. 7 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. No later than January 22, 2024, Plaintiff SHALL FILE as a stand-alone docket 9 entry the second amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to the parties’ 10 stipulation (Doc. 32 pp. 5-15); and 11 2. Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiff's second amended complaint shall be 12 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). | Is SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ January 17, 2024 | hr 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALORNIA 10

11 AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE Case No. 1:23-cv-00643-NODJ-CDB COMPANY, 12 ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 14 (Doc. 32) ESG REPUBLIC, INC., ESG REPUBLIC II, 15 LLC, WORKLOGIC HR INSURANCE JANUARY 22, 2024, DEADLINE SERVICES LLC, BRADLEY C. BURKS, 16 JEFFREY D. THORN, VENSURE HR, INC. and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on April 27, 2023. (Doc. 1). 20 On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the now-operative first amended complaint. (Doc. 11). 21 Pursuant to the scheduling order entered in this action, any motions to amend the 22 pleadings were to be filed by January 13, 2024. (Doc. 21 at 3). The scheduling order further 23 provides: 24 All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause 25 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth 26 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) 27 prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 28 1 || Id. 2 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to permit Plaintiff to file a 3 ||second amended complaint. (Doc. 32). Although the filing was made several days after the 4 || deadline to request leave to file an amended pleading, the Court had considered the Foman 5 || factors set forth above and finds good cause to grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended 6 || complaint. 7 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. No later than January 22, 2024, Plaintiff SHALL FILE as a stand-alone docket 9 entry the second amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to the parties’ 10 stipulation (Doc. 32 pp. 5-15); and 11 2. Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiff's second amended complaint shall be 12 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). | Is SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ January 17, 2024 | hr 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

American Zurich Insurance Company v. ESG Republic, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-zurich-insurance-company-v-esg-republic-inc-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack