Juan Moreno v. Pih Lazeez Inc et al

Filing 12

ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Plaintiff Moreno filed his amended complaint months after the 21-day amendment window closed following service on Defendant. Second, Defendant has yet to file any responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion. Moreno therefore was required to obtain leave of court to amend his Complaint which he failed to do. The Courts June 17, 2014 Order to Show Cause remains in full force and effect. (lc). Modified on 6/18/2014 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

JUAN MORENO,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 2:13-cv-09444-ODW(VBKx)

v.

ORDER STRIKING FIRST

PIH LAZEEZ INC; DOES 1–10,

AMENDED COMPLAINT [11]

Defendants.

16
17

On June 17, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff Juan Moreno to show cause why

18

he had not served Defendant Pih Lazeez within the 120-day window mandated by

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 8.) Moreno responded with a proof

20

of service indicating that he served Defendant on February 4, 2014. (ECF No. 9.)

21

Since Defendant’s answer or other response was due by February 25, 2014, the Court

22

then ordered Moreno to show cause why he had not moved for entry of default against

23

Defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Moreno responded by filing an amended complaint. (ECF

24

No. 11.)

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments before trial. The

26

Rule provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course either 21

27

days after serving it, or, 21 days after a party files a responsive pleading or Rule 12

28

motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)–(B).

1

Here, Moreno has complied with neither prong.

He filed his amended

2

complaint months after the 21-day amendment window closed following service on

3

Defendant. Second, Defendant has yet to file any responsive pleading or Rule 12

4

motion.

5

Complaint—which he failed to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2).

6
7
8

Moreno therefore was required to obtain leave of court to amend his

The Court therefore STRIKES Moreno’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.)
The Court’s June 17, 2014 Order to Show Cause remains in full force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

June 18, 2014

11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2