Van Dusen v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 255

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ( 213 , 214 , 219 , 235 , 240 ) MOTIONS TO STRIKE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAN VAN DUSEN, Case No. 13-cv-05023-HSG Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STRIKE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. Nos. 213, 214, 219, 235, 240 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 INTRODUCTION On October 24, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 15 and permitted her “one final opportunity” to amend the complaint. See Docket No. 160. On 16 November 14, 2014, pursuant to the Court’s October 24, 2014 Order, Plaintiff filed her Second 17 Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See Docket No. 162. On January 30, 2015, without leave of Court 18 and without consent from Defendants, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). See 19 Docket No. 206. On February 13, 18, 19, and 20, 2015, Defendants filed various motions to strike 20 the TAC. See Docket Nos. 213, 214, 219, 235, & 240. The Court finds these motions are 21 appropriate for determination without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set 22 forth below, Defendants’ motions to strike the TAC are GRANTED. 23 24 DISCUSSION A party may amend her complaint once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). At 25 all times thereafter, amendment of the complaint may only occur with leave of court or the 26 opposing party’s written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). An amended complaint filed in 27 violation of Rule 15—that is, without leave of court or consent of defendants—is “without legal 28 effect.” Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to Rule 12(f), courts 1 may strike amended pleadings that fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 15. Sapiro v. 2 Encompass Ins., 221 F.R.D. 513, 517 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 3 Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file the TAC, nor did Defendants consent to the 4 filing of the TAC. See Black Decl. ¶ 7. Because the TAC was filed in violation of Rule 15, it is 5 without legal effect. The SAC remains the operative complaint. The issue of leave to amend the 6 SAC will be addressed when the Court rules on the pending motions to dismiss and strike the 7 SAC. Defendants’ motions to strike the TAC are hereby GRANTED. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 24, 2015 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?