Robert Richards et al v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al

Filing 32

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)ORDER (1) Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot [Dkt. 13] and (2) Granting Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 22] by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 16-2069-GHK (KK)

Date: November 29, 2016

Title: Robert Richards, et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEB TAYLOR

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order (1) Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot [Dkt. 13] and (2) Granting
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 22]

On September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs Robert Richards and Olga Richards (“Plaintiffs”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983,
alleging Defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Does 1 through 10 violated their
Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF Docket No. 1. On October 20, 2016, Defendant Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 13. On November 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and lodged a copy of the proposed First
Amended Complaint. Dkt. 22.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), “[a] party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within, . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b),
(e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “When a plaintiff who has a right to
amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a) nevertheless petitions the court for leave to amend,
the plaintiff’s right to amend is not lost and the court is obliged to grant such ‘unnecessary
request[s].’” Ramirez v. Silgan Containers, No. CIV. F07-0091 AWI (DLB), 2007 WL 1241829,
at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007) (quoting Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th
Cir. 1988)) (holding the district court “does not have discretion to prohibit” plaintiff from
amending his complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15).

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

Here, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint within
twenty-one days of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Hence, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED as MOOT (dkt. 13) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED (dkt.
22). The Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiffs’ proposed First Amended Complaint (dkt. 22-1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __