Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

OR FOR OTHER RELIEF; DISMISSING

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT;

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND

Before the Court is third-party defendant APV North America, Inc.’s (“APV”) “Motion

to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third Party Action, and/or Change the Trial

Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement Conference, Pretrial Conference and Discovery

Cutoffs,” filed October 16, 2006. Plaintiffs Richard and Wendy Homem have filed a partial

opposition; defendant/third-party plaintiff Intec USA, LLC (“Intec”) has filed an opposition,

along with a motion for leave to file a First Amended Third-Party Complaint. Having

reviewed the papers filed in support of and in response to APV’s motion, the Court rules as

follows:

1. APV’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is hereby GRANTED. The

third-party complaint omits any facts to support the conclusory assertions as to liability

contained therein, and, consequently, is hereby DISMISSED, for failure to comply with Rule

8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 230 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. Intec’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Third-Party Complaint is hereby

GRANTED, and Intec is hereby ORDERED to file its First Amended Third-Party Complaint

no later than October 25, 2006.

3. APV’s alternative requests to sever the claims against it and/or modify the pretrial

order are hereby DENIED as premature. In the event that Intec files a timely First

Amended Third-Party Complaint, APV may, upon review of such allegations, renew such

requests.

4. APV’s request to continue the settlement conference, scheduled for October 31,

2006 is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 230 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2