Summary
holding that a motion that concerns substitution of one entity for another and not the substantive amendment of the pleadings is properly governed by Rule 25 and not Rule 15
Summary of this case from Essani v. EarleyOpinion
10 Civ. 0695 (BMC).
April 7, 2010
ORDER
Defendant Peralta, appearing pro se, has filed a "motion to strike" plaintiffs' affidavits filed in support of its motion for the appointment of a receiver on the ground that the affidavits contain hearsay. The motion is denied. The Court already granted the motion for the appointment of a receiver at the status conference. More importantly, the affidavits do not contain hearsay as to any material facts. A bank officer in charge of maintaining a loan file is able to testify about the contents of the loan file pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court therefore denies the motion to strike and reaffirms its prior ruling granting plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver.