The motion is what it sounds like, though a fifth amended complaint is unusual, especially in a fairly modest-sized case. Upon the opposition and cross-motion, however, this became a much bigger thing.
Regrettably the judge did not issue a written opinion, but the transcript of the oral argument, which is this document, is very illuminating.
There is no error in the dating, by the way. The papers on this motion were fully submitted by the end of 2005, and this oral argument took place in September of 2006.
There have still been no substantive motions in this case, in which the judge has repeatedly set aside his own scheduling order.