1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. LUCAS v. BREG, INC.
 

LUCAS v. BREG, INC.

Case No. 15-cv-258-BAS-NLS.

STACEY LUCAS, an individual; TAREK ALBABA, an individual; RIGOBERTO VINDIOLA, an individual; DAVID GAMMA, an individual; SARAH FISHER, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs, v. BREG, INC., a California corporation; GARY LOSSE, an individual; MARK HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. California.

January 11, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stacy Lucas, Plaintiff, represented by Chase Stern , Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul LLP, Marc O Stern , Law Offices of Marc O Stern & William A Lemkul , Morris & Sullivan LLP.

Tarek Albaba, Plaintiff, represented by Chase Stern , Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul LLP, Marc O Stern , Law Offices of Marc O Stern & William A Lemkul , Morris & Sullivan LLP.

David Gamma, Plaintiff, represented by Chase Stern , Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul LLP, Marc O Stern , Law Offices of Marc O Stern & William A Lemkul , Morris & Sullivan LLP.

Sarah Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Chase Stern , Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul LLP, Marc O Stern , Law Offices of Marc O Stern & William A Lemkul , Morris & Sullivan LLP.

Breg, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Jeffrey Duke , Bowman and Brooke, Eden Darrell , Bowman and Brooke LLP, Marion V. Mauch , Bowman & Brook LLP, Mary Novacheck , Bowman and Brooke LLP, Paul Gerard Cereghini , Bowman and Brook LLP, Randall L. Christian , Bowman and Brooke LLP & Susan Elizabeth Burnett , Bowman and Brooke.

Gary Losse, Defendant, represented by C. Christopher Brown , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Mark Howard, Defendant, represented by David Jeffrey Duke , Bowman and Brooke, Eden Darrell , Bowman and Brooke LLP, Marion V. Mauch , Bowman & Brook LLP, Mary Novacheck , Bowman and Brooke LLP, Randall L. Christian , Bowman and Brooke LLP & Susan Elizabeth Burnett , Bowman and Brooke.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants oppose the motion (ECF No. 40), and Plaintiffs have replied (ECF No. 43). For the reasons set forth below, the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases