Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUDY G. HEMPHILL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE)

ESTATE OF JAMES J. RYSKAMP, )

JR., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-01319-REC-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 22)

Vacated Hearing Date:

March 31, 2006

ORDER DEEMING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUBMITTED TO THE COURT

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

On March 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to

amend/correct the first amended complaint which had been filed on

January 4, 2006. The Court interprets this motion as a motion for

leave to file a second amended complaint.

Reference to the motion reveals that service has not yet

been completed on any defendants other than two defendants who

have been voluntarily dismissed; further, it is not clear that

Defendant James J. Ryskamp, Jr., M.D., Inc., which has been

served, will respond because a personal representative of the

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 03/27/06 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

estate of James J. Ryskamp, Inc., has not yet been appointed. By

separate orders, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to advance the

hearing on this motion, and Plaintiff’s request to continue the

scheduling conference, have been granted.

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h) of the Local Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a second amended complaint is a matter that may

appropriately be submitted upon the record and briefs, including

the Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion and memorandum of

points and authorities with exhibit.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion, presently set for

March 31, 2006 IS VACATED, and the motion IS DEEMED SUBMITTED to

the Court for decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 29 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2