Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 This case was reassigned to me by Order dated April

27, 2007 after the parties consented to magistrate judge

jurisdiction. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5025 BZ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND TO FILE A

SURREPLY, AND ALLOWING

DEFENDANT TO RENOTICE AND

SUPPLEMENT HIS MOTION TO

DISMISS

Before me is defendant Philip R. Green’s Motion to

Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

and Motion to Strike Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(f) [Docket No. 11].1 Several related motions

remain pending, including plaintiff’s motion for leave to file

an amended complaint [Docket No. 18] and plaintiff’s motion

for leave to file a surreply to defendant’s reply [Docket No.

29]. Citing procedural irregularities, defendant objected to

the Court granting plaintiff leave to file her amended

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 45 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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 Plaintiff explained that she wished to remove a

second defendant that she added in her initial amended

complaint. Although such a step is rendered unnecessary by my

decision to deny her original motion, a comparison of the

complaint and first amended complaint shows that plaintiff

added additional facts and clarified her allegations. Thus,

insofar as the amendment may cure infirmities in plaintiff’s

initial complaint, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint is appropriate.

2

complaint [Docket No. 25], but did not object to plaintiff’s

request to file a surreply. At a case management conference

held on June 4, 2007, plaintiff stated her desire to file

another amended complaint. 

Having heard no opposition to plaintiff’s motion for

leave to file her surreply, that motion is GRANTED. The

surreply received by the Court on February 27, 2007 is deemed

filed. Given defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s initial

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and given that

defendant was never given an opportunity to respond to that

complaint, that motion is DENIED. 

The policy of granting leave to amend, however, is “to be

applied with extreme liberality.” Province of Holy Name, Inc.

v. CNA Cas. of Cal., 2007 WL 1381516, at *2 (N.D. Cal.)

(citing Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff stated at the hearing

that she desired to file another amended complaint.2 I treat

her statements on the record as a motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint, and hereby GRANT the motion. Plaintiff

will file and serve on defendant her amended complaint by no

later than Friday, June 22, 2007. If defendant wishes to

pursue his motion to dismiss, he may re-notice and supplement

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 45 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

his motion by Friday, July 6, 2007. The supplement will not

exceed ten pages in length. The motion to dismiss the amended

complaint will at that point will be deemed submitted.

Dated: June 6, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\ORD.LEAVE.FILE.AMENDED.COMP.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 45 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3