Remember that case where Judge Seitz struck a motion for class cert because it was filed three months after the deadline?
Well these hapless plaintiffs can't seem to get anything right.
First they filed an amended complaint, adding some new class reps and a new defendant.
Sua sponte, Judge Seitz struck it because they were past the deadline to add new parties.
Oops!
The Judge also entered an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for lead counsel's failure to file pro hac motions -- the response is worth a read.
Not content to leave well enough alone, the plaintiffs inexplicably moved for reconsideration of the Court's sua sponte Order striking their amended complaint.
How do you think the Court ruled?
