Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00027-L-JMA

Document 8

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 Craig R. McClellan (71865)

Robert J. Chambers, II (244688)

2 HE McCLELLAN LAW FIRM 1144 State Street

3 San Diego, California 92101

(619) 231-0505

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 KATHLEEN VESTEVICH,
) Case No.: 3:08-cv-00027-L-JMA
) ) )
) )

11

Plaintiff,

12
vs.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
DATE: TIME: JUDGE: TRIAL:

13
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID 15 SERVICES; CNI ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LLC,

) ) )
) ) ) ) )

June 2, 2008
10:30 a.m.

Hon. M. James Lorenz None set.

16

17
18

Defendants.

I. REPLY

Plaintiff has no issue with defendant's conditional non-opposition to her Motion to

19

Amend Complaint ("Motion"). However, in its response to the Motion, defendant requests
for the first time that all other named defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff will not agree to
such as dismissal, and submits that a conditional non-opposition is not the proper vehicle

20
21

22
23

for this type of relief. If defendant wishes to seek a dismissal of all other defendants, it can
do so through a properly noticed motion supported by declarations and legal authority

24
rather than by argument of counseL.

25 26
27

28

- 1 -

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Case 3:08-cv-00027-L-JMA

Document 8

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 Dated: May 5, 2008

THE McCLELLAN LAW FIRM

2
3 4 5 6
7

By: lsi

ROBERT J. CHAMBERS, II

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 9 10
11

12

13
14

15 16

17
18 19

20
21

22 23 24

25 26
27 28
-2PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT