Celentano v. Sacramento Regional Transit District et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/19/12: The March 21, 2012 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is vacated. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve and file a second amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. This case is referred to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP"). The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the VDRP coordinator. (cc: VDRP)(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GEORGIA A. CELENTANO,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.

No. CIV. S-11-1881 KJM CKD PS

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL
TRANSIT DISTRICT et al.,

14
Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. This

17
18

proceeding was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(b)(1).

20

A status (pre-trial scheduling) conference in this matter is currently set for March

21

21, 2012. (Dkt. No. 9.) On March 15, 2012, in response to the court’s March 9, 2012 order to

22

either file a status report or a statement of consent to referral to the court’s Voluntary Dispute

23

Resolution Program (“VDRP”), plaintiff filed a statement indicating that she consents to VDRP

24

and requesting that the court defer scheduling the case until completion of the VDRP session.

25

(Dkt. No. 23.) Because both parties have now requested referral to the VDRP program, the court

26

will refer the case to VDRP and will vacate the status (pre-trial scheduling) conference currently
1

1
2

set for March 21, 2012.
Plaintiff also raises the issue of further amendment of her complaint. On October

3

24, 2011, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service of process on defendants with

4

plaintiff’s original complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) On January 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended

5

complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) Thereafter, on January 12, 2012, defendants filed an answer. (Dkt.

6

No. 14.) Plaintiff now indicates that she desires to file a second amended complaint to

7

incorporate additional claims, and states that she intends to file a motion for leave to amend as to

8

both the first amended complaint and the potential second amended complaint.

9

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may

10

amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days of serving it, or (B) if the

11

pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive

12

pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the

14

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when

15

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

16

Here, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed before defendants filed their

17

answer, and therefore no leave of court was required to file it. However, plaintiff does require

18

leave of court to file a second amended complaint. In the interests of judicial efficiency and

19

economy, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). No discovery has yet been conducted and pre-trial deadlines have not been

21

set. Accordingly, the resulting prejudice to defendants is minimal. Nevertheless, plaintiff is

22

cautioned that further leave to amend will not be granted in the absence of good cause.

23

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

24

order to make any second amended complaint complete. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220 requires that an

25

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

26

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.
Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the
2

1

original and first amended complaints no longer serve any function in the case.
Additionally, in light of the fact that the case will be referred to VDRP, plaintiff

2
3

will be required to file and serve any second amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the

4

date of service of this order, so as to allow for settled pleadings at the time of the VDRP session.

5

Defendants will be required to answer the second amended complaint within 21 days of service.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The March 21, 2012 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is vacated.

8

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve and file a second amended complaint within

9

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Defendants shall answer the second

10

amended complaint within 21 days of service with the second amended complaint. No further

11

amendment to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.

12

3. This case is referred to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”).

13

4. The parties are directed to review the requirements of the Program outlined in

14

E.D. Cal. L.R. 271 and shall contact the court’s VDRP coordinator, Suejean Park, within

15

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order to initiate the process of selecting a neutral.

16

The VDRP coordinator may be contacted by telephone at [phone] or by e-mail at

17

[e-mail].

18

5. The parties shall inform the court within 120 days of the date of service of this

19

order whether the program successfully resolved the case. The court will then set a further status

20

conference if necessary.
6. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the VDRP coordinator.

21
22

Dated: March 19, 2012

23

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
CKD/5

26

Celentano.1881.vdrp.wpd

3