Gregg v. Bohemian Club
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-02760
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gregg v. Bohemian Club, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered limited briefing on whether amendment would be futile after finding defendants’ dismissal motions generally meritorious.
The plaintiffs and the defendants Pomella LLC and Bohemian Club were affected. The order imposed briefing deadlines and addressed the plaintiffs’ late response to the defendants’ dismissal motions.
What happened
In Gregg v. Bohemian Club, the plaintiffs did not timely respond to dismissal motions filed by Pomella LLC and Bohemian Club. Their lawyer acknowledged a mistaken belief about the deadlines, but the court was not inclined to allow a late opposition.
The court generally found the defendants’ motions to dismiss meritorious. It said the remaining issue was whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their claims, particularly whether amendment would be futile.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered the plaintiffs to file a brief of no more than three pages by November 15, 2023, addressing whether they could state claims against Pomella LLC and Bohemian Club after amendment. Each defendant could file a response of no more than three pages by November 29, 2023.
The detailed version
- Gregg v. Bohemian Club · No. 3:23-cv-02760
- Martinez-Olguin
- Nov. 1, 2023
Background
Pomella LLC and Bohemian Club filed motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs did not timely respond. In response to the court’s order addressing the missed deadlines, the plaintiffs’ lawyer acknowledged that he had mistakenly believed the briefing deadlines were different. The plaintiffs nevertheless submitted argument and evidence concerning the merits of the dismissal motions, contrary to the court’s direction.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it generally found the defendants’ motions to dismiss meritorious. The court then focused on whether the plaintiffs should receive leave to amend—that is, permission to revise their claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally should freely allow amendments when justice requires, while considering factors including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, and futility. The court identified futility as the relevant issue and noted that the parties’ briefs had not addressed it.
Order
The court ordered further briefing limited to whether the plaintiffs could state claims against Pomella LLC and Bohemian Club if allowed to amend, or whether amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs’ brief, limited to three pages, was due November 15, 2023. Each defendant could file a response of no more than three pages by November 29, 2023. The order did not state that either motion to dismiss was granted or denied, and it did not decide whether amendment would be allowed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.