Zymex Industries, Inc. v. Ziba Foods, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ZYMEX INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01086-NONE-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION OF DOE DESIGNATION 13 v. (ECF No. 9) 14 ZIBA FOODS, LLC, 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff filed this trademark infringement action on August 5, 2020, naming Ziba Foods, 18 LLC, as Defendant, along with Doe Defendants 1 through 10. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant Ziba 19 Foods was served on August 6, 2020. (ECF No. 4.) On November 4, 2020, the Court issued a 20 scheduling order setting a deadline of December 31, 2020, for any motions or stipulations 21 requesting leave to amend the pleadings. (ECF No. 8.) On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 22 document entitled Doe Designation No. 1, designating Raffi Vartanian, as Doe Defendant No. 1. 23 (ECF No. 9.) 24 Under the Local Rules, “every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is 25 permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so 26 that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” L.R. 220. 27 Plaintiff did not file a stipulation or motion for leave to file an amended complaint, nor a motion to substitute. See Garcia ex rel. Estate of Acosta-Garcia, 428 F. App’x 706, 708–09 (9th Cir. 1 | 2011) (‘Neither did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Maria leave to amend 2 | the complaint to identify the Doe defendants. Maria had ample opportunity prior to the time 3 | defendants moved for summary judgment to conduct reasonable discovery, identify these 4 | defendants, and seek leave to amend the complaint to name them properly.”); Jorgenson v. 5 | United States, No. 117CV00817LJOEPGPC, 2019 WL 6211102, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) 6 | (failure to file a motion for leave to amend or motion to substitute doe defendant), report and 7 | recommendation adopted, No. 117CV00817LJOEPGPC, 2020 WL 430849 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 8 | 2020); Torbert v. Gore, No. 14CV2911 BEN (NLS), 2015 WL 9582911, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9 | 10, 2015) (“A motion for leave to amend a complaint to substitute in the name of a DOE 10 | defendant is also governed by Rule 15.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-CV-2911- 11 | BEN (NLS), 2015 WL 9581837 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015). Plaintiffs filing shall therefore be 12 | disregarded. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's December 31, 2020 filing 14 | entitled Declaration of Doe Designation No. 1 (ECF No. 9), is DISREGARDED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 17 | Dated: _January 4, 2021 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28