Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05454/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05454-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Plaintiffs did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of the instant request. For

future reference, plaintiffs are reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing

Orders: “In all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the

parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that

is filed electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later

than noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be

marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly

marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTA FE POINTE, LP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GREYSTONE SERVICING

CORPORATION, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-07-5454 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

By order filed August 1, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part

defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint.

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Request for Clarification of Ruling on Motion to

Dismiss; Request for Leave to Amend,” filed August 6, 2008,1

 and defendants’ opposition

thereto, also filed August 6, 2008.

By the instant request, plaintiffs seek “clarification” of whether the Court’s August 1,

Case 3:07-cv-05454-MMC Document 87 Filed 08/19/08 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

2008 order allowed plaintiffs leave to amend. Because the order did not afford leave to

amend, it is unclear what type of clarification is necessary. In any event, plaintiffs, in

opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss, did not request leave to amend, nor suggest any

additional facts that could be alleged to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in its

August 1, 2008 order. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs seek clarification, the request is

DENIED.

To the extent plaintiffs, in the first instance, seek leave to amend, the request is

DENIED without prejudice. To seek leave to amend, plaintiffs must file a noticed motion to

amend and must attach thereto their proposed Third Amended and Supplemental

Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05454-MMC Document 87 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 2