From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jul 23, 2007
No. C 07-00671 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007)

Summary

finding that plaintiffs in class action were not diligent because they were aware of new facts in August but did not seek leave to amend until October; motion to file third amended complaint denied

Summary of this case from Turner v. Sheriff of Sacramento

Opinion

No. C 07-00671 WHA.

July 23, 2007


ORDER RE BRIEFING CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' JULY 17, 2007, LETTER


The Court has received plaintiffs' letter dated July 17. The Court is very concerned to learn, assuming it to be true, that defendants have refused to schedule Rule 30(b)(6) depositions that were noticed on May 17. Defense counsel shall response to the July 17 letter by NOON ON JULY 24. In the meantime, the Court will hold in abeyance on the defense request for protective order in its July 13 letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jul 23, 2007
No. C 07-00671 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007)

finding that plaintiffs in class action were not diligent because they were aware of new facts in August but did not seek leave to amend until October; motion to file third amended complaint denied

Summary of this case from Turner v. Sheriff of Sacramento
Case details for

Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank

Case Details

Full title:DAVID VAN SLYKE, FRANKLIN CHAN and THOMAS E. BROWNING, on behalf of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jul 23, 2007

Citations

No. C 07-00671 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2007)

Citing Cases

Turner v. Sheriff of Sacramento

Plaintiff "cannot be allowed to amend [the] complaint whenever and however [he] wish[es]." See Van Slyke v.…

Terech v. First Resolution Mgmt. Corp.

See Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc., 362 F.3d 971, 979 (7th Cir.2004). While earlier cases…