Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
lawsuit [2016/10/24 02:43] – punctuation fix Carlos Pedrazalawsuit [2016/10/24 02:44] – [Axanar's Response] Carlos Pedraza
Line 85: Line 85:
 == Amended Legal Complaint == == Amended Legal Complaint ==
  
-Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http://1701news.com/node/1041/cbsparamount-ask-short-delay-axanar-lawsuit.html|1701News: CBS/Paramount Ask For Short Delay In 'Axanar' Lawsuit]], 2/24/16.)) on the case, [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge Klausner]] denied the delay.(([[http://www.scribd.com/doc/301310328/Order-Denied-stipulation-to-continue|Judge's 2/26/16 order denying continuance, scribd.com]], retrieved 2/29/16)). +Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http://1701news.com/node/1041/cbsparamount-ask-short-delay-axanar-lawsuit.html|1701News: CBS/Paramount Ask For Short Delay In 'Axanar' Lawsuit]], 2/24/16.)) on the case, [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge Klausner]] denied the delay.(([[http://www.scribd.com/doc/301310328/Order-Denied-stipulation-to-continue|Judge's 2/26/16 order denying continuance, scribd.com]], retrieved 2/29/16.)) 
  
 Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{:031123065442-noticeofplaintiffsnonoppositiontomotiontodismiss.pdf|notice to the court}} filed March 7, 2016, plaintiffs had failed to respond to the dismissal motion on the due date, adding that their attorneys had informed them of its intent to file an amended legal complaint. With the filing of the amended complaint, the {{:moot-mtd.jpg?linkonly|judge ruled}} the original dismissal motion moot, sending the case to the next scheduled [[scheduling_conference|pre-trial meeting]]. Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{:031123065442-noticeofplaintiffsnonoppositiontomotiontodismiss.pdf|notice to the court}} filed March 7, 2016, plaintiffs had failed to respond to the dismissal motion on the due date, adding that their attorneys had informed them of its intent to file an amended legal complaint. With the filing of the amended complaint, the {{:moot-mtd.jpg?linkonly|judge ruled}} the original dismissal motion moot, sending the case to the next scheduled [[scheduling_conference|pre-trial meeting]].