Elliott

Andrew James Elliott v. BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 20253:25-cv-02472California608 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2472-RSH-SBC

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

13

MOTION TO DISMISS

14 DEFENDANT BAE SYSTEMS AND v.

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A

15

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16 [ECF No. 5]

BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND

17 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 18 INTEGRATION INC, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion seeking leave for Plaintiff to 23 file an amended complaint and to dismiss defendant BAE Systems from this action without 24 prejudice. ECF No. 5. For the reasons below, the Court grants the Parties’ motion for leave. 25 I. STIPULATION TO DISMISS BAE SYSTEMS 26 On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against defendants BAE 27 Systems, Inc., BAE Systems, BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems 28 Integration, Inc., BAE Systems Info & Electronics Systems, Inc., Kerry Bliss and Andre 1 Richardson, and various Doe defendants in California…

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.