Harris et al v. Chipotle Mexican Gill, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/24/2014 Re 8 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Docket No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT and th e hearing set for 1/27/2014 at 2:00 PM is VACATED; and Defendants "First Amended Answer" (Docket No. 9) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN as untimely. Defendant shall file a First Amended Answer within five days of the date that this Order is signed. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

DANISHA HARRIS; ANTANISHA WILEY;
DEONTE MASK; JASON RYAN;
individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general
public similarly situated,

17
18
19
20

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

15
16

CIV. NO. 2:13-2472 WBS EFB

v.
CHIPTOLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendant.
----oo0oo----

21
22

On December 24, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Motion to

23

Strike nineteen of defendant’s affirmative defenses pursuant to

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

25

opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, defendant filed a “First

26

Amended Answer” on January 15, 2014.

27
28

In lieu of filing an

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a
“party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
1

1

(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one

2

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

3

of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion

4

under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”

5

Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

6

untimely under Rule 15(a)(1)(A) because it was filed twenty-eight

7

days after defendant filed its initial Answer.

8

amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) because a

9

responsive pleading is not required for an answer.

Fed. R.

Defendant’s “First Amended Answer” was

Defendant cannot

Because

10

defendant was not entitled to amend its answer under Rule

11

15(a)(1), Rule 15(a)(2) required defendant to obtain leave of

12

court or plaintiffs’ written consent prior to amendment.

13

R. 15(a)(2).

14

See id.

In the interest of efficiency and because defendant’s

15

attempt to file an amended answer was only one week outside of

16

the time it could have done so as a matter of course, the court

17

will construe defendant’s untimely “First Amended Answer” as a

18

request for leave to file an amended answer and grant defendant

19

leave to file an amended answer.

20

amended answer, plaintiffs may file a subsequent motion to strike

21

if doing so is truly necessary and the particularity plaintiffs

22

seek cannot be obtained through interrogatories.

23

After defendant files its

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to strike

24

(Docket No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot and the

25

hearing set for January 27, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. is vacated; and

26

defendant’s “First Amended Answer” (Docket No. 9) be, and the

27

same hereby is, stricken as untimely.

28

Defendant shall file a First Amended Answer within five
2

1

days of the date that this Order is signed.

2

Dated:

January 24, 2014

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3