-KJN (PS) Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank et al, No. 2:2011cv01163 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/1/11 re 32 Request filed by Tracy D. Lawson: Because the proposed findings and recommendations are still pending, there is no present need to revisit plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. (Meuleman, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TRACY D. LAWSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:11-cv-01163 KJM KJN PS v. CITICORP TRUST BANK, FSB, et al., 14 Defendants. RESPONSE TO “REQUEST OF STATUS” / 15 16 On November 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s Request 17 of Status” (Dkt. No. 32), which appears to seek a status update from the court regarding a motion 18 for leave to amend that plaintiff filed on August 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 27).1 The court denied 19 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint on August 23, 2011. (Minute Order, Aug. 20 23, 2011, Dkt. No. 29.) Noting that proposed findings and recommendations recommending the 21 dismissal of plaintiff’s entire action with prejudice had already been entered at the time plaintiff 22 filed her motion for leave to amend, the court’s order states: 23 In light of the pending findings and recommendations [Docket No. 25], plaintiff’s motion to amend [Docket No. 27] is DENIED. If any of plaintiff’s claims remain after resolution of the findings and 24 25 1 26 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendations by the district judge, plaintiff may re-file her motion to amend. 2 3 (Id.) Because the proposed findings and recommendations are still pending, there is no present 4 need to revisit plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 5 DATED: December 1, 2011 6 7 8 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
