Advanced Building & Fabrication, Inc., et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al.
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/5/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 30 is STRIKEN for failure to comply with Rule 15(a).(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
ADVANCED BUILDING &
FABRICATION, INC. a
California corporation;
ROBERT HONAN, an individual,
14
15
16
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
12
13
No. 2:13-CV-02380-GEB-CKD
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
JOHN WILSON, an individual,
CRUTIS J. AYERS, an
individual, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive,
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiffs
19
an
action
Superior
of
Sacramento.
22
Amended
Complaint
(“FAC”)
23
removed
the
to
24
Subsequently, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC under
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), and twenty-one
26
days after the dismissal motion was filed, Plaintiffs filed a
27
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).
the
federal
of
Plaintiffs
same
court
on
court
the
2013
California,
in
Court
27,
21
FAC
the
September
against
County
in
on
20
28
Defendants
filed
State
filed
and
November
a
of
First
Defendants
15,
2013.
However, Plaintiffs have not shown they were authorized
1
1
to file a SAC. Rule 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings
2
before
3
pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after
4
service of a motion under Rule 12(b). . . . In all other cases, a
5
party
6
written consent or the court’s leave.”
trial
may
7
and
amend
states
its
in
part,
pleading
only
“[a]
party
with
the
may
amend
opposing
its
party’s
“When a state court action is removed to federal court,
8
the
removal
9
commenced in federal court.” Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1037
10
(9th Cir. 2002); see also Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785
11
(9th Cir. 1963) (holding that after removal, a district court
12
“takes the case as it finds it” and “treats everything that
13
occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal
14
court.”). “Because [Plaintiffs] filed [their FAC] . . . in state
15
court prior to removal to this court, [they] already amended
16
[their] pleading once as a matter of course. Thus, [they] could
17
not properly file the [SAC] without first obtaining leave of the
18
court
19
Metlife Bank N.A., No. CIV 2:11-651-WBS-DAD, 2011 WL 2080249, at
20
*3
21
stricken for failure to comply with Rule 15(a).
22
Dated:
[or
(E.D.
is
the
Cal.
treated
opposing
May
25,
as
if
party’s
2011).
June 5, 2015
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
the
original
written
action
consent].”
Therefore,
had
been
Manzano
Plaintiffs’
SAC
v.
is
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?