Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

 In their opposition, plaintiffs request leave to file a motion for attorney’s fees. (See

Opp’n at 1:28-2:1-2.) Said request is denied as moot, as plaintiffs do not require leave to

file such motion. The Court notes, however, that no ground for such an award is apparent

based on the record before the Court at this time.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL ALPERIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VATICAN BANK, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-99-4941 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ORDER

OF FRIARS MINOR’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER OFM’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF

LAW 

Before the Court is defendant Order of Friars Minor’s (“OFM”) “Motion for Leave to

File Instanter OFM’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law Addressing Bell Atlantic v.

Twombly in Support of OFM’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing,” filed October 12,

2007. Plaintiffs filed opposition on October 14, 2007.1

 

Upon defendant Istituto per le Opere di Religione’s (“IOR”) request, the Court

previously allowed defendant IOR to submit supplemental briefing with respect to Twombly. 

(See Order filed August 8, 2007.) Thereafter, defendant OFM joined in IOR’s supplemental

brief. (See “Defendant Order of Friars Minor’s Joinder in IOR’s Submission of

Supplemental Brief Regarding Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007),”

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 330 Filed 10/25/07 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

 In their opposition, plaintiffs additionally seek an order striking Docket No. 382-2

from the record. To the extent plaintiffs seek such additional relief, the request is hereby

DENIED for the reason that Docket No. 382-2 is listed in the docket as an “Attachment” to

OFM’s motion. In other words, the document is properly filed as an exhibit.

2

filed August 24, 2007.) 

The matter having been fully briefed by the parties, and defendant OFM having

failed to show good cause for its delay in making the instant request or to identify a

sufficient need for additional briefing, defendant OFM’s motion is hereby DENIED.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 330 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2