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)

Download PDF
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?