Evans Hotel, LLC v. Unite Here! Local 30

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVANS HOTELS, LLC, a California Case No.: 18-CV-2763-RSH-AHG limited liability company; BH 12 PARTNERSHIP LP, a California limited ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 partnership; EHSW, LLC, a Delaware MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE limited liability company, FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; 14 (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff, 15 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES v. AND COSTS; (3) GRANTING JOINT 16 MOTION FOR ORDER ON UNITE HERE! LOCAL 30; BRIGETTE 17 BRIEFING OF MOTION TO BROWNING, an individual; SAN DIEGO DISMISS; AND (4) DENYING JOINT 18 COUNTY BUILDING and MOTION FOR STATUS CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, 19 CONFERENCE AFL-CIO; TOM LEMMON, an

20 individual; and DOES 1-10, [ECF Nos. 118, 125, 126, 137] 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Pending before the Court are four motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File 25 a Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 118); (2) Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 26 and Costs Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (ECF No. 125); (3) the 27 Parties’ Joint Motion for an Order on Briefing a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 126); and (4) 28 a Joint Motion to Set a Status Conference (ECF No. 137). For the reasons discussed below, 1 the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 118), denies Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 2 125), grants the parties’ Joint Motion on Briefing (ECF No. 126), and denies the Joint 3 Motion for a Status Conference (ECF No. 137). 4 I. Background 5 The Court previously provided a detailed factual and procedural background in its 6 Order of August 26, 2021. ECF No. 93. For purposes of the pending motions, the relevant 7 procedural history below pertains to Plaintiffs’ filing of successive complaints, 8 Defendants’ motions to dismiss or to strike those complaints, and the Court’s rulings. 9 On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in this matter, alleging 10 nine claims: (1) unlawful secondary boycott in violation of section 303 of the Labor- 11 Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), (2) attempted monopolization in violation of 12 section 2 of the Sherman Act, (3) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of section 2 of the 13 Sherman Act, (4) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 (“RICO”), (5) violation of RICO by conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (6) violation 15 of RICO by conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), (7) violation of RICO by conspiring 16 to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (8) interference with prospective economic advantage, and 17 (9) attempted extortion. ECF No. 1. In February 2019, Defendants filed motions to dismiss 18 and anti-SLAPP motions. ECF Nos. 15-18. 19 On March 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, containing the same 20 nine claims. ECF No. 19. The Court ruled that the filing of an amended complaint mooted 21 the motions that were pending as to the initial complaint. ECF No. 24. On April 15, 2019, 22 Defendants again filed motions to dismiss as well as motions to strike. ECF Nos. 29-32. 23 On January 7, 2020, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims, ruling that 24 Plaintiffs had failed to plead facts establishing that Defendants’ conduct was not protected 25 under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. ECF No. 60. The Court denied the anti-SLAPP 26 motions as moot, and provided that Plaintiffs could request leave to amend. Id. at 25. 27 Plaintiffs requested and were granted leave to amend. ECF No. 75. 28 1 On April 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF 2 No. 76. The SAC added a new state claim for unfair competition, and withdrew two RICO 3 conspiracy claims, for a total of eight claims (of which three were state claims). Id. 4 Defendants again filed motions to dismiss, as well as an anti-SLAPP motion directed to 5 the state claims. ECF Nos. 79-81. 6 On August 26, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims in the SAC, except Plaintiffs’ 7 first claim for unlawful secondary boycott in violation of section 303 of the LMRA. ECF 8 No. 93. The dismissal was without prejudice. Id. at 61. Having dismissed all the state 9 claims, the Court denied as moot Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. Id. at 60-61. The Court 10 also denied without prejudice Defendants’ request for fees and costs made in connection 11 with the anti-SLAPP motion. Id. at 60. 12 Defendants thereafter moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order, which the 13 Court denied on January 28, 2022. ECF No. 113. In denying the motion for reconsideration, 14 the Court directed that “Plaintiffs must file their Third Amended Complaint within ten (10) 15 days of this order” and “[a]bsent a motion demonstrating good cause, that complaint must 16 not contain any new claims for relief.” Id. at 113. 17 On February 7, 2022, within the ten-day window, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended 18 Complaint (“TAC”). ECF No. 114. The TAC contained three federal claims, none of which 19 were new: (1) unlawful secondary boycott, (2) attempted monopolization in violation of 20 section 2 of the Sherman Act, and (3) conspiracy to monopolize in violation of section 2 21 of the Sherman Act. 22 On February 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to extend the deadline 23 for Defendants to respond to the TAC. ECF No. 115. In that motion, the Parties indicated 24 that “Plaintiffs intended to seek leave of the Court to assert a new antitrust claim arising 25 under section 1 of the Sherman Act based on the existing nucleus of facts.” Id. at 3. On 26 February 15, 2022, the Court granted the motion in part, directing Plaintiffs to file their 27 motion for leave to amend within ten days. The order advised that “a strong showing must 28 1 be made for why any claims can survive as well as why they were not brought within the 2 past three years of this case’s pendency.” ECF No. 116 at 4. 3 On February 25, 2022, Plaintiffs timely filed their Motion for Leave to File a Fourth 4 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that is pending before this Court. ECF No. 118. The 5 proposed FAC adds two claims under section 1 of the Sherman Act, for a total of five 6 claims. ECF No. 118-3. Neither the TAC nor the FAC contains state claims. Plaintiffs’ 7 motion has been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 118, 119, 121, 122, 123. 8 On April 5, 2022, Defendants filed their pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs 9 pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute; this motion has likewise been fully briefed. 10 ECF Nos. 125, 127, 128. 11 Also on April 5, 2022, the Parties filed their joint motion for an order on briefing a 12 motion to dismiss. ECF No. 126. That motion proposes expanded page limits for briefing 13 on a motion to dismiss that is yet to be filed by Defendants, but that will seek dismissal 14 either of the TAC (if the Court denies leave to file a FAC) or of the FAC (if the Court 15 grants leave to file). 16 After the case was transferred to the undersigned on June 24, 2022 (ECF No. 135), 17 the Parties on August 2, 2022 filed their joint motion for a status conference. ECF No. 137. 18 The joint motion recited the procedural history of the case and requested a status conference 19 because “there are motions pending before the Court that will drive how the litigation 20 proceeds going forward.” Id. at 6. 21 II. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend 22 Plaintiffs’ motion, filed more than 38 months after the initial complaint, seeks leave 23 to file a Fourth Amended Complaint that for the first time includes two claims under section 24 1 of the Sherman Act. Instructed by the Court to make a showing of why these claims could 25 not have been brought earlier, Plaintiffs’ explanation is that “they have been developing an 26 additional theory of liability, having hired additional counsel specialized in antitrust and 27 retained experts.” ECF No. 118-1 at 5. Based on undue delay, prejudice, and the fact that 28 1 the complaint has been amended more than once previously, the Court exercises its 2 discretion to deny Plaintiffs’ request. 3 A. Legal Standard 4 On a motion for leave to amend a pleading, a court should “freely give leave when 5 justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court considers five factors in 6 determining whether a motion for leave to amend is appropriate: “bad faith, undue delay, 7 prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has 8 previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 9 2004). Among these factors, “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that 10 carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th 11 Cir. 2003). Undue delay, while less significant than prejudice, is also relevant. See 12 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) 13 (“Although delay is not a dispositive factor in the amendment analysis, it is relevant.”); 14 Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Undue delay is a valid reason 15 for denying leave to amend.”); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 16 Cir. 1987) (“[D]elay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend.”). 17 A Court’s “discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff 18 has previously amended the complaint.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 19 1149, 1160 (9th Cir.1989). Furthermore, “a district court does not abuse its discretion in 20 denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories 21 and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to develop his contention 22 originally.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Allen v. City of 23 Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 375 (9th Cir. 1990)). See also Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home 24 Loan Bank of San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir.1986) (refusing to allow 25 plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint where “[t]he factual bases of the claims were 26 known to [plaintiff] long before” and that “permitting amendment would impose a 27 prejudicial burden on the [defendant]”). 28 / / / 1 B. Analysis 2 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their proposed FAC was filed over 38 months after 3 they filed their initial complaint. Before Plaintiffs filed their motion, the Court advised 4 them of the need to make a showing of why their new claims could not have been brought 5 earlier in the case. ECF No. 116 at 4. Plaintiffs responded that they “have been developing 6 an additional theory of liability, having hired additional counsel specialized in antitrust and 7 retained experts.” ECF No. 118-1 at 11.1 Plaintiffs do not contend that the new claims are 8 based on newly discovered facts; instead, they state that “the factual predicate for the 9 proposed Section 1 claims is substantially similar” to that of their other claims. Id. at 7. 10 Plaintiffs provide no reason that they could not have developed these theories, or hired the 11 relevant attorneys or experts, earlier or at the outset of the case. Plaintiffs also cite, as 12 reasons for delay, a host of reasons including judicial reassignments, the time that the Court 13 has taken to rule on the Parties’ motions, and the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 118-1 at 14 7, 14; ECF No. 121 at 4. But none of these factors has anything to do with why Plaintiffs 15 could not have brought their proposed new claims earlier.2 The Court finds that Plaintiffs 16 17 18 19 1 Plaintiffs have three law firms representing them at present. At the time of their 20 initial complaint, they had one multinational law firm representing them. ECF No. 1. At 21 the time of their SAC, that law firm was joined by a second multinational firm that continues to be counsel of record. ECF No. 76. 22 2 Plaintiffs also claim that they held off on filing their new claims to await the outcome 23 of Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on the Court’s August 26, 2021 Order dismissing all but the first claim in Plaintiffs’ SAC. Plaintiffs contend that otherwise they 24 would have filed those claims in September 2021 (33 months after the initial complaint). 25 ECF No. 118-1 at 14. The Court is skeptical of this contention, which is unsupported by any declaration. Plaintiffs’ motion states that they “have been developing an additional 26 theory of liability, having hired additional counsel specialized in antitrust,” ECF No. 118- 27 1 at 11. Counsel from the third law firm that currently represents Plaintiffs, and that appears to specialize in antitrust and competition law, first entered appearances in October 2021. 28 1 have no legitimate reason for their delay, and that such delay was undue and unreasonable. 2 See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) 3 (finding delay was unreasonable where plaintiff “never provided a satisfactory 4 explanation” for a 15-month delay between discovery of a possible litigation theory and 5 request for leave to amend).4 6 Plaintiffs’ principal argument is that, whatever the cause of the delay may be, 7 Defendants will suffer no prejudice from having to defend new claims in the FAC because 8 (1) the new claims are based on substantially the same facts as the old claims; (2) 9 Defendants have not filed an answer yet; and (3) discovery has not yet begun. ECF No. 10 118-1 at 13-14. But here, the prejudice to Defendants is straightforward: For over three- 11 and-a-half years, Defendants have been, and still are, litigating the pleadings. See Synopsys, 12 Inc. v. Libr. Techs., Inc., No. 20-CV-07014-CRB, 2022 WL 2356819, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 13 30, 2022) (finding that party will be “substantially prejudiced” by an amendment that was 14 brought nearly two years after complaint was filed, even though discovery had not yet 15 begun, in light of “the many motions and hearings” that had taken place) (citing Ascon 16 17 18 3 Plaintiffs argue that this Court, in dismissing without prejudice all but one of the 19 claims in the SAC, also authorized Plaintiffs to bring any new claims as they deemed appropriate, and that they “relied on” that ruling. ECF No. 118-1 at 15. Not so. The Court’s 20 August 26, 2021 Order provided that Plaintiffs “MAY FILE an amended complaint 21 addressing the above-identified deficiencies within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order.” ECF No. 93 at 61. In giving Plaintiffs the chance to amend for 22 the specific purpose of “addressing the above-identified deficiencies,” the Court was not 23 inviting new and different claims. 4 The only case that Plaintiffs have identified as addressing a delay of this length is 24 Cejas v. Paramo, No. 14-CV-1923-WQH-WVG, 2018 WL 1637997 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 25 2018), which involved a 42-month delay between the initial complaint and the proposed First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff was a prisoner who explained that he had been on 26 “lock down ‘for months.’” Id. at *1. The court noted that “[t]o call this undue delay would 27 be an understatement.” Id. However, given the absence of other factors weighing against amendment, the court granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. at 2. Notably, 28 1 Properties, 866 F.2d at 1161). This includes six motions to dismiss, five motions to strike, 2 their pending motion for fees based on the motion to strike, and the motion to dismiss that 3 they are reportedly preparing to file to either the TAC or the FAC, depending on the Court’s 4 ruling. As a result of these efforts—even though the initial Complaint was superseded by 5 Plaintiffs, the First Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and the SAC was 6 dismissed in its entirety except for a single claim—Plaintiffs’ proposed FAC is roughly as 7 long as it has ever been and includes two new claims which have not previously been 8 litigated. If these claims had been included in the initial complaint, they would be that much 9 closer to getting a final resolution of the legal issues raised by the pleadings, and proceeding 10 to discovery and trial. As the Parties will know, that litigation is not only time-consuming 11 but costly, as reflected in Defendants’ pending motion for attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 125. 12 See Ascon Properties, 866 F.2d at 1161 (holding that pre-discovery amendment would 13 prejudice defendant “through the time and expense of continued litigation on a new theory, 14 with the possibility of additional discovery”); Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak- 15 MP Equip., Inc., 2013 WL 398664, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013) (finding that two-year 16 delay in bringing new claims caused prejudice because “requiring Defendant to respond to 17 Plaintiff’s untimely allegations would generate unnecessary expenditures by the parties and 18 the Court”). 19 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ new claims will result in significant added 20 complexity, expense, and delay. This is illustrated by the fact that it took Plaintiffs several 21 years, plus a fourth, antitrust-focused law firm and the engagement of antitrust experts, to 22 be in a position to plead these claims. This is also illustrated by the Declaration of Chetan 23 Sanghvi, Ph.D., that Plaintiffs filed in connection with their Reply Brief. ECF No. 121-2. 24 Dr. Sanghvi’s 29-page declaration advises that his work is “in its preliminary stages,” but 25 he offers “provisional conclusions” that the FAC appropriately pleads relevant antitrust 26 markets and participants (including with regard to the labor market definition that is new 27 to the FAC, and that will likely require additional factual investigation and legal analysis 28 by Defendants). Id. at 3-4. In the course of discovery, Defendants will no doubt engage 1 experts of their own if they have not already done so; nonetheless, even at the pleading 2 stage, Plaintiffs’ proposed new claims will impose a substantial burden on Defendants.5 3 With regard to whether “the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint,” 4 Johnson, 356 F.3d at 1077, the Plaintiffs have done so here. Defendants contend that they 5 would have included the new section 1 claims in their TAC but did not want to violate the 6 Court’s Order of January 28, 2022. ECF 113. Accepting that representation, they 7 nonetheless previously filed a First Amended Complaint (as of right) and a Second 8 Amended Complaint (with leave of Court). This factor, like that of undue delay and 9 prejudice, also weighs against granting leave to amend. See Ascon Properties, 866 F.3d at 10 1160 (holding that a district court has broad discretion to deny leave to amend where 11 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint). 12 Finally, the Court declines to analyze whether the proposed claims would be futile. 13 The Court exercises its discretion to deny leave to amend in light of the 38-month 14 unexcused delay, the prejudice to Defendants, and the fact of Plaintiffs’ three prior 15 amendments. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (holding that a strong showing of 16 the factors support denial of leave to amend). 17 III. Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 18 Defendants move for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California 19 Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c)(1) on the grounds that they are the “prevailing 20 defendant[s] on a special motion to strike.” ECF No. 125. However, this Court previously 21 determined, at the time of denying Defendants’ motion to strike as moot, that Defendants 22 were not “prevailing parties” and that an award of fees was not warranted. ECF No. 93 23 (Order dated Aug. 26, 2021) at 60. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is denied. 24 25

26 27 5 The Court declines to address the merits of Dr. Sanghvi’s lengthy declaration and, for purposes of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, sustains Defendants’ objection to it. ECF No. 28 1 In its August 26, 2021 Order granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss with 2 leave to amend, and denying as moot Defendants’ special motion to strike under 3 California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Court ruled that Defendants were not “prevailing 4 parties” are were not entitled to recover their fees. Id. at 61. Specifically, the Court held: 5 [F]ees are not warranted here. In contrast to Defendants’ cases, see [Resolute Forest Prod., Inc. v. Greenpeace Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 6 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2017)] (separately addressing anti-SLAPP motion on 7 the merits); [Robinson v. Alameda Cty., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2012)] (dismissing defamation claim with prejudice); 8 [Bhambra v. True, No. C 09-4685 CRB, 2010 WL 1758895, *2 (N.D. 9 Cal. Apr. 30, 2010)] (granting attorneys’ fees on anti-SLAPP motion where “this Court has already dismissed [the plaintiff’s] complaint with 10 prejudice”), the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims without 11 prejudice and without addressing the Anti-SLAPP Motion on the merits. See generally supra. Consequently, Defendants are not 12 “prevailing parties” for purposes of Section 425.16(c)(1)—or entitled 13 to attorneys’ fees—at this time. See, e.g., Garcia v. Allstate Ins., No. 1:12-cv-00609-AWI-SKO, 2012 WL 4210113, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14 18) (“Since Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is being considered in 15 federal court, and since the Ninth Circuit requires that Plaintiffs be given an opportunity to amend their complaint … , granting of 16 Defendant’s motion is considered a ‘technical’ victory that does not 17 warrant an award of attorney’s fees to Defendant as the prevailing party.”) (citing Verizon Del., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Co., 377 F.3d 18 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2004); Brown v. Elecs. Acts, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 19 1148, 1156-57 (C.D. Cal. 2010)), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4982145 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012); Martin v. Inland Empire 20 Utilities Agency, 198 Cal. App. 4th 611, 633 (2011) (“[B]ecause the 21 court’s order granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion with leave to amend was the functional equivalent of a denial, defendants were not 22 ‘prevailing parties’ entitled to attorney fees”). 23 Id. at 60. Although Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Order, they did not 24 challenge this aspect of the Order. See ECF No. 100. 25 Even though there has been no further anti-SLAPP litigation since their motion was 26 denied, Defendants argue that they have now become “prevailing parties”—and therefore 27 28 1 have become entitled to their attorneys’ fees—because Plaintiffs chose not to re-plead the 2 state claims that the Court dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 125-1 at 4-5. 3 Defendants’ request for fees has already been denied. The Court explained that it 4 was denying the request because “the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims without 5 prejudice and without addressing the Anti-SLAPP Motion on the merits.” ECF No. 93 at 6 60. None of this has changed. The anti-SLAPP motion has not been renewed or addressed 7 on the merits. The Court’s denial of the request for fees was “without prejudice,” meaning 8 that if Defendants filed a new anti-SLAPP motion against claims brought by Plaintiffs, in 9 the event Defendants prevailed they could again request their fees. The Court’s ruling did 10 not invite Defendants to bring a new motion for fees in the event Plaintiffs chose not to 11 pursue their state claims. 12 Among the cases cited in the Court’s Order denying Defendants’ fee request was the 13 Ninth Circuit’s decision in Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co., 377 14 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2004). In that case, the district court deferred ruling on the defendant’s 15 anti-SLAPP motion, pending the plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint. Id. at 1090- 16 91. The Ninth Circuit found no error and disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the 17 district court’s approach amounted to giving the plaintiff a “free shot at a SLAPP suit 18 before amending the complaint.” Id. at 1091. The Ninth Circuit explained that “the purpose 19 of the anti-SLAPP statute, the early dismissal of meritless claims, would still be served if 20 plaintiff eliminated the offending claims from their original complaint,” and “[i]f the 21 offending claims remain in the first amended complaint, the anti-SLAPP remedies remain 22 available to defendants.” Id. The clear implication is that absent any offending claims, the 23 anti-SLAPP remedies would not be available. See Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, 359 24 F. Supp. 3d 801, 820 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he Court denies the anti-SLAPP motion and 25 request for fees without prejudice at this time. Defendants may renew their motion if 26 [plaintiff] includes amended state law claims in his second amended complaint.”). The 27 present case is distinguishable from ones in which a plaintiff dismissed or announced an 28 intent to withdraw claims while an anti-SLAPP motion was pending. See, e.g., Plevin v. 1 City and Cty. of San Francisco, No. 11-cv-2359, 2013 WL 2153660, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 2 16, 2013) (awarding fees where the court “denied Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike 3 as moot in light of Plaintiffs’ representation that they did not intend to assert their state law 4 claims in their Amended Complaint”). 5 At the time this Court denied Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as moot and granted 6 Plaintiffs leave to amend, it ruled that Defendants were not “prevailing parties” and were 7 not entitled to fees. Without a new anti-SLAPP motion, this remains the case. 8 IV. Joint Motion for Briefing on Motion to Dismiss 9 The Parties jointly moved for leave to file oversized briefs in connection with 10 Defendants’ to-be-filed motion to dismiss. ECF No. 126. Given the length of the TAC, the 11 complexity of the claims, and the length of prior applicable Court orders, the Court finds 12 good cause for granting the request. 13 V. Joint Motion for Status Conference 14 Finally, the parties jointly moved for a status conference, on the grounds that “[t]here 15 are several motions pending before the Court, and the outcome of those motions will likely 16 drive further proceedings.” ECF No. 137 at 3. The Court interprets the joint motion as a 17 diplomatic reminder to the newly assigned district judge that there are motions pending in 18 the case. Having addressed those motions, the Court does not see any reason for a status 19 conference at this time. To the extent that there are other reasons warranting a status 20 conference, the Parties are invited to identify those issues and renew their motion. 21 VI. Conclusion 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave 23 to File a Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 118) and Defendants’ Motion for 24 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 125). The Court GRANTS parties’ Joint Motion for 25 Order on Briefing of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 126) and ORDERS that: 26 (1) Defendants file a single, joint memorandum in support of their motion to 27 dismiss the TAC of not more than 40 pages; 28 1 (2) Plaintiffs file a single memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to 2 dismiss the TAC of not more than 40 pages; and 3 (3) Defendants file a single, joint reply memorandum in support of their motion 4 to dismiss the TAC of not more than 15 pages. 5 Finally, the Parties’ Joint Motion for Order Setting Status Conference (ECF No. 137) 6 DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ‘ 9 ||Dated: August 30, 2022 [hut G How 10 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28