Lily

Lily v. Rosenow

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20253:23-cv-00644California1,919 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 “LILY,” “SARAH,” JANE ROE Case No.: 23-cv-00644-WQH-DEB as next friend for “PIA,” a minor, 16 ORDER 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 CARSTEN IGOR ROSENOW, 20 a/k/a CARLOS SENTA, Defendant. 21 22

23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 25 Complaint (ECF No. 54) filed by Plaintiffs “Lily,” “Sarah,” and Jane Roe as next friend 26 for “Pia.” 27 / / / 28 1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs “Lily,” “Sarah,” and Jane Roe as next friend for “Pia” 3 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant 4 Carsten Igor Rosenow (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) 5 On July 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 6 19) in which they sought liquidated damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides 7 a civil remedy for victims to recover damages from individuals convicted of certain child 8 pornography offenses, as well as punitive…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.