Lindblad v. Bolanos
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-06606
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Lindblad v. Bolanos — Judge Illston granted amendment, denied a subpoena, and found the dismissal and extension motions moot.
Robert Lindblad and the defendants, including Carlos G. Bolanos; the order allowed an amended complaint, denied a subpoena request, and left the dismissal and extension motions moot.
What happened
In Robert Lindblad v. Carlos G. Bolanos, et al., the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and Lindblad asked to amend it, subpoena video evidence, and receive more time to respond.
The court granted Lindblad permission to file an amended complaint by March 18, 2022, and said the dismissal motion became moot because of that decision. The court also found the request for more time moot and denied the subpoena request because discovery was premature before the initial case-management conference.
Judge Susan Illston vacated the scheduled motion hearing, continued the initial case-management conference to April 22, 2022, and entered the rulings described above. The order did not decide the merits of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Lindblad v. Bolanos · No. 3:21-cv-06606
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 16, 2022
Background
The court addressed four pending motions: the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Lindblad’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, Lindblad’s motion to subpoena video evidence, and Lindblad’s motion for an extension of time to oppose the dismissal motion.
Rulings
Motion to dismiss
The court marked the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as moot because it would grant Lindblad leave to file an amended complaint. The court vacated the motion hearing scheduled for March 25, 2022.
Motion to amend
The court granted Lindblad’s motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2). Although the court described the motion as vague and difficult to follow, it concluded that allowing an amended complaint would not cause delay or prejudice to the defendants. The amended complaint was due by March 18, 2022. The court stated that it did not anticipate granting further leave to amend if a later dismissal motion had merit.
Motion to subpoena
The court denied Lindblad’s motion to subpoena video evidence. It ruled that discovery requests and subpoenas were premature before the initial case-management conference. That conference was continued from March 25, 2022, to April 22, 2022, at 2:30 p.m.
Motion for an extension of time
The court marked Lindblad’s request for additional time to respond to the dismissal motion as moot because the court granted leave to amend and found the dismissal motion moot.
Disposition and significance
The order granted the motion to amend, denied the motion to subpoena, and found the motion to dismiss and motion for an extension of time moot. It was a procedural order and did not decide whether the complaint’s claims were legally valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.