Davis

Davis v. Advance Services, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 13, 20232:22-cv-00343California562 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DURIEL DAVIS, No. 2:22-cv-00343-MCE-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADVANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Duriel Davis’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint. ECF No. 42; see also Pl.’s Mem. ISO Mot. Leave, ECF No. 42-2 (“Pl.’s Mem.”). The following groups of Defendants filed Statements of Non- Opposition to the Motion: (1) Carlos Guerrero; and (2) Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, ADM Rice, Inc., ADM Milling Company, Janet Escalante, Matthew House, and Johnny Barnett. ECF Nos. 44–45. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)2 provides that, “[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the

26 1 Defendant Advance Services, Inc., who previously filed an Answer to the original Complaint, did not file any…

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.