Zhang v. Walgreen CO.

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING 29 Motion to Strike 28 First Amended Complaint and GRANTING Plaintiff leave to file a motion for leave to file amended complaint. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010)

Zhang v. Walgreen CO.

Doc. 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JANET ZHANG, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant. / INTRODUCTION Now before the Court for consideration is the Motion to Strike Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Walgreen Co. ("Walgreen"). The Court has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing set for September 17, 2010 and HEREBY GRANTS Walgreen's motion. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff leave for the purposes of either filing a motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint or for obtaining a stipulation from Walgreen permitting the amendment. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2010, the parties appeared before this Court for the initial case management conference. At that time, the Court April 15, 2010, as the deadline by which the parties could amend their pleadings. (Docket No. 16.) On April 15, 2010, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to continue that deadline until two weeks after they completed mediation. (Docket No. 23.) On July 14, 2010, the parties completed mediation. (Docket No. 27.) On No. C 09-05921 JSW ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

July 30, 2010, two days after the Court imposed deadline, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. Walgreen now moves to strike the First Amended Complaint on the basis that it is untimely. Plaintiff, through counsel, has explained the reason for the untimely filing. (See Declaration of David A. Depolo, ¶¶ 7, 9-14.) Although Plaintiff missed the deadline imposed by the Court, the Court finds good cause to excuse Plaintiff's two day lapse. However, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint was not accompanied by a stipulation permitting amendment or a motion for leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court shall strike the proposed First Amended Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff failed to follow the procedures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for missing the deadline, the Court's ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion for leave to file the amended complaint. Plaintiff must file that motion by no later than September 9, 2010. Defendant's opposition to the motion shall be due on September 23, 2010, and Plaintiff's reply shall be due on September 30, 2010. Unless the Court determines that a hearing is necessary, the matter will be resolved on the papers. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 2, 2010

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2