Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-34/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 

INTEC USA, LLC,

Third-Party Complainant

 v.

APV NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant

 /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING THIRDPARTY COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT; DENYING

AS MOOT THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINANT’S APPLICATION FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Before the Court is third-party complainant Intec USA, LLC’s (“Intec”) response, filed

November 10, 2006, to the Court’s order directing Intec to show cause why its First

Amended Third-Party Complaint (“FATC”) should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Also before the Court is Intec’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Third-Party Complaint and Intec’s Application for Order Shortening Time for

Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Third-Party Complaint, both filed

November 10, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 282 Filed 11/22/06 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

1

Because a hearing on the motion for leave to amend is not necessary, the Court

DENIES as moot Intec’s application for an order shortening time to hear the motion.

2

Having reviewed Intec’s response, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the order to

show cause, in light of Intec’s having demonstrated its ability to allege and establish

diversity of citizenship, and hereby GRANTS Intec’s motion for leave to amend.1

 Because

the Second Amended Third-Party Complaint (“SATC”) proposed in conjunction with Intec’s

motion for leave to amend, however, includes Intec’s First and Third Causes of Action,

which claims by separate order filed concurrently herewith have been dismissed, Intec may

not file its proposed SATC. Instead, Intec shall file a SATC in accordance with the Court’s

orders no later than December 4, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: November 22, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 282 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2