Grant v. United States of America, et al
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/7/2011 ORDERING 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as MOOT: and pltf's # 63 motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint shall remain on calendar on 11/10/2011. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARK A. GRANT,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-00360 LKK KJN PS
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Two motions are presently set to be heard by the undersigned on November 10,
17
2011: (1) plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of defendants’ answer to the First Amended
18
Complaint (Dkt. No. 62); and (2) plaintiff’s motion for leave to further amend his First Amended
19
Complaint (Dkt. No. 63).1 The undersigned denies plaintiff’s motion to strike as moot, but will
20
hear plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend on November 10, 2011, if the parties are unable to
21
stipulate to such further amendment in advance of the hearing.
22
On September 8, 2011, defendants filed their answer to plaintiff’s First Amended
23
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 57.) However, on September 29, 2011, defendants filed a timely
24
Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint as a matter of course (Dkt. No. 59). See Fed.
25
1
26
This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) (providing that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
2
within 21 days after serving it). On September 29, 2011, plaintiff filed his motion to strike
3
portions of defendants’ original answer. However, because defendants’ Amended Answer is now
4
defendants’ operative answer, plaintiff’s motion to strike the previously filed answer is denied as
5
moot.
6
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a further amended complaint notes that plaintiff
7
did not seek defendants’ consent to any further amendment prior to filing the motion. However,
8
plaintiff essentially seeks such consent within the motion. If defendants consent to permit
9
plaintiff to further amend the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
10
will be mooted. If defendants do not consent—and nothing in this order or the Federal Rules of
11
Civil Procedure compels defendants to consent to such amendment—the undersigned will
12
resolve plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend after a hearing to be conducted on November 10,
13
2011. Nothing in this order should be construed as altering the briefing schedule provided in
14
Local Rule 230.
15
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 62) is denied as moot.
17
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint shall
18
19
20
remain on the undersigned’s calendar on November 10, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2011
21
22
23
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?