Jones v. Sugahara Kisen KK
- Susan Illston
- 3:24-cv-08952
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jones v. Sugahara Kisen KK, Judge Illston allowed an amended complaint and dismissed three motions to dismiss as moot.
Matthew Jones and the defendants in the case, particularly Sugahara Kisen KK, Valero Refining Company - California, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., whose motions to dismiss were dismissed as moot.
What happened
In Jones v. Sugahara Kisen KK, Matthew Jones asked to file a second amended complaint while three defendants had pending motions to dismiss his first amended complaint.
Jones had voluntarily dismissed his claims against one defendant. Amports, Inc. and APS West Coast, Inc. had not appeared, while Sugahara Kisen KK, Valero Refining Company - California, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. had each filed a motion to dismiss.
Judge Susan Illston granted Jones leave to file a second amended complaint and dismissed the three motions to dismiss as moot. The court required Jones to file the amended complaint by April 4, 2025, after which the defendants could renew their motions.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Sugahara Kisen KK · No. 3:24-cv-08952
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Matthew Jones filed an original complaint against six named defendants and then filed a first amended complaint two days later. He voluntarily dismissed his claims against one defendant. Amports, Inc. and APS West Coast, Inc. had not appeared in the case.
Sugahara Kisen KK, Valero Refining Company - California, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. filed separate motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. The motions were set for hearing on May 2, 2025, and briefing was still ongoing. Jones moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, also set for hearing on May 2, 2025.
Ruling
The court granted Jones’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court explained that, even if the defendants succeeded on their motions to dismiss, it would likely allow Jones to amend the complaint, so granting leave immediately would promote judicial efficiency.
The court dismissed the three motions to dismiss as moot. Jones was required to file the second amended complaint by Friday, April 4, 2025. After that filing, the defendants could renew their motions to dismiss, using similar or new arguments. The defendants were required to respond to the amended complaint within fourteen days after service of the pleading.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.