B.O.L.T. et al v. City of Rancho Cordova et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/7/14 ORDERING On October 6, 2014, over twenty-one (21) days after Plaintiffs served their complaint and Defendants filed a dismissal motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in this action. (ECF No. 14 .) Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is stricken since it has not been filed in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

B.O.L.T., an unincorporated
association of motorcycle
riders and enthusiasts; MARK
TEMPLE, an individual; NOREEN
MCNULTY, an individual;
WARREN PEARL, an individual;
LYLE DUVAUCHELLE, an
individual; GLENN OSBORN, an
individual; JEFFREY RABE, an
individual; DAVID ZALITSKIY,
an individual; WILLIAM
LANGHORNE, an individual;
THOMAS BELL, an individual;
ROBERT BALTHORPE II, an
individual,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No.

2:14-cv-01588-GEB-DAD

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, a
political subdivision of the
state of California; COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO, a political
subdivision of the state of
California; RANCHO CORDOVA
POLICE DEPARTMENT, an
independent legal agency of
the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and
the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL GOOLD, in
his official capacity as the
Chief of Police of the CITY
OF RANCHO CORDOVA; RANCHO
CORDOVA POLICE TRAFFIC
SERGEANT G. LANE, in his
individual and official
capacity as Supervisor of the
Traffic Division; SCOTT R.
JONES, in his official
capacity as the SHERIFF of
the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
1

1
2
3
4

RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER
S. CARRDOZZO (badge number
480); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE
OFFICER M. JAMES (badge
number 507); RANCHO CORDOVA
POLICE OFFICER S. PADGETT
(badge number 1174),

5

Defendants.

6
7
8
9

On October 6, 2014, over twenty-one (21) days after
Plaintiffs

served

their

complaint

and

Defendants

filed

a

10

dismissal motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b),

11

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in this action. (ECF

12

No. 14.) Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is stricken since it

13

has not been filed in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 15(a)(1).

15

Dated:

October 7, 2014

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2