Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de295> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de295 RegisterActionDate "2014-07-22" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de295 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 289 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to explicitly include their claim that Defendant's MSOC standards and resulting efficiency pressure violated the FLSA with respect to the individually named Plaintiffs. Defendant objects to the motion and argues that an amendment at this stage in the litigation would be both unduly late and prejudicial. (R. 292, Resp. at 9, 12.) At today's motion hearing, Plaintiffs stated that they do not believe that the proposed amendment is necessary, but the motion was filed in response to Defendant's summary judgment motions, in which it argues in part that the court should "reject" and "summarily dismiss" the individual Plaintiffs' MSOC-related theory on the ground that it was never pled adequately. (See, e.g., R. 281, Def.'s Mem. at 7-8.) Defendant acknowledged during the motion hearing that in addition to this procedural argument its pending motions for summary judgment also address the substance of the MSOC-related claims. Given that the question whether the individual Plaintiffs' claims are broad enough to include the MSOC theory is currently being addressed through the summary- judgment briefing, the court finds that it is not necessary to address the arguments raised in the motion or the opposition thereto at this point in time. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 07/22/2014)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de295 AdministrativeID "294" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de295 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-00336_de289 @default.