From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunn v. Portman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 24, 2012
Case No. CV-11-7805-R (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. CV-11-7805-R

02-24-2012

ROBIN WYATT DUNN v. NATALIE HERSCHLAG PORTMAN et al


CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

PRESENT: HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL, JUDGE

+-------------------------------+ ¦William Horrell ¦None Present ¦ +----------------+--------------¦ ¦Courtroom Deputy¦Court Reporter¦ +-------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:¦ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------¦ ¦None ¦None ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)

On January 23, 2012, this Court entered its Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with 10 days leave from that date for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, if he so desired.
The plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and the date afforded to him to do so has long since passed.
IT IS NOW ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

cc: counsel of record


Summaries of

Dunn v. Portman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 24, 2012
Case No. CV-11-7805-R (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Dunn v. Portman

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN WYATT DUNN v. NATALIE HERSCHLAG PORTMAN et al

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 24, 2012

Citations

Case No. CV-11-7805-R (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012)

Citing Cases

Press v. Davis

"From the foregoing well-sustained propositions it follows that the statute of limitations could not begin to…

McGrew v. Elkins

Plaintiff's cause of action was not barred by the 10 year Statute of Limitations. Until the suit brought by…