Gregory Sanchez v. Teamsters Western Region and Local 177 Health Care Plan

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 18 AND DENYING AS MOOTDEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 14 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Amendments at this stage of the litigation are generally permitted, and courts should construe pleadings and p apers of pro se litigants liberally. Rather than address the Plans motion to dismiss at this stage, the Court GRANTS Sanchezs motion for leave to amend and DENIES AS MOOT the Plans motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)( 3), the Plan will be allowed fourteen days after service of Sanchezs amended complaint in which to respond.The Court advises Sanchez that he should file his new complaint at the Clerks Office window on the Fourth Floor of the Federal Courthouse locat ed at 350 W. Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. He must also serve a copy of the new Complaint on the Plan at its address of record. If Sanchez does not file a new complaint within thirty days of the date of this order, the Court will close this case for lack of prosecution without further notice. (lc). Modified on 3/2/2017. (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

GREGORY SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 5:16-cv-2083-ODW-PLA

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

14

TEAMSTERS WESTERN REGION &

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

15

LOCAL 177 HEALTH CARE PLAN,

[18] AND DENYING AS MOOT

Defendant.

16

DEFENDANT’S

MOTION

TO

DISMISS [14]

17
18
19

Plaintiff Gregory Sanchez, appearing pro se, asserts three causes of action

20

against Defendant Teamsters Western Region & Local 177 Health Care Plan (“the

21

Plan”): violation of Public Law 97-280; violation of the free exercise clause of the

22

First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and violation of the Civil Rights

23

Act of 1964. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On January 20, 2017, the Plan moved to

24

dismiss Sanchez’s Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be

25

granted.

26

opposition to the motion, but on January 25, 2017, he did file a motion for leave to file

27

an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The Plan then filed a response to Sanchez’s

28

motion, indicating that it does not oppose Sanchez filing an amended complaint but

(ECF No. 14); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sanchez did not file an

1

that it has not received Sanchez’s purported service of the amended complaint. (ECF

2

No. 27.)

3

Amendments at this stage of the litigation are generally permitted, and courts

4

should construe pleadings and papers of pro se litigants liberally. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

15(a)(2); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). As such, rather than address the

6

Plan’s motion to dismiss at this stage, the Court GRANTS Sanchez’s motion for leave

7

to amend and DENIES AS MOOT the Plan’s motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal

8

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), the Plan will be allowed fourteen days after service

9

of Sanchez’s amended complaint in which to respond.

10

The Court advises Sanchez that he should file his new complaint at the Clerk’s

11

Office window on the Fourth Floor of the Federal Courthouse located at 350 W. First

12

Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. He must also serve a copy of the new Complaint on

13

the Plan at its address of record. If Sanchez does not file a new complaint within

14

thirty days of the date of this order, the Court will close this case for lack of

15

prosecution without further notice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

March 1, 2017

20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2