Evans v. City & County of San Francisco Department of Public Health
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 2, 2008. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 To the extent plaintiff declines to consent to the assignment of his case to a magistrate judge rather than a district judge, the request has been addressed by the reassignment of the above-titled action to the undersigned on September 25, 2008.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-3329 MMC ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE /
RONALD EVANS, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Defendants.
United States District Court
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment to a Superior Court Judge," filed September 22, 2008.1 By said Request, plaintiff seeks to dismiss "in its entirety" his Amended Complaint, filed June 13, 2008, in which he pleads a single claim under Title VII, and to substitute in its place his original Complaint, filed May 9, 2008, in which he alleged only state law claims, and thereafter to have the case remanded to state court. Because an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and thus "renders it of no legal effect," see, e.g., King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (7th Cir. 1994), dismissal of the Amended Complaint herein would not serve the purpose for which plaintiff seeks such order, but, rather, would result in the dismissal of the action itself. Consequently, if plaintiff wishes to amend his pleadings to allege only state law
1 2 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
claims, with the goal of returning to state court, plaintiff must file, no later than October 24, 2008, a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and for remand, and must attach to his motion a Proposed Second Amended Complaint in which he alleges his state law claims.2 In light of the above, the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for October 17, 2008 is hereby CONTINUED to November 21, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
Plaintiff is hereby advised that his Second Amended Complaint must stand on its own as a new pleading, i.e., plaintiff may not simply seek to incorporate by reference therein all or part of his original Complaint.
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?