Thomas v. City College of San Francisco et al

Filing 44

ORDER STRIKING DOCKET NO. 42 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/15/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAROL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05504-HSG
ORDER STRIKING DOCKET NO. 42

v.
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO, et
al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff Carol Thomas (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for leave to file a

14

second amended complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff attached to that motion a copy of

15

her proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 33-1. Because Defendant City College of San

16

Francisco (“Defendant”) did not oppose the motion and because the Court did not find that there

17

was any improper purpose, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on July 14, 2016. Dkt. No. 35.

18

On July 27, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

19

Dkt. No. 37. In response, the Court vacated the pending case management conference. Dkt. No.

20

39. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 41.

21

On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint as a separate entry on the

22

docket. Dkt. No. 42. This complaint does not match the proposed complaint that the Court gave

23

Plaintiff leave to file in its previous order. Compare Dkt. No. 42 with Dkt. No. 33-1. Plaintiff

24

essentially admits that the two complaints do not match: she captions the latter document as a

25

“Formal Amended Second Complaint.” Dkt. No. 42 at 1.

26

Plaintiff may not file a different complaint than the one she submitted and the Court

27

approved without obtaining further approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Permitting Plaintiff to file

28

a different second amended complaint would prejudice Defendant because it has already filed a

1

motion to dismiss based on the proposed complaint that Plaintiff filed in May. It would also waste

2

judicial and private resources to require the motion to dismiss to be re-briefed.

3

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the second amended complaint filed as Docket No. 42

4

from the docket. The operative complaint is the proposed amended complaint that Plaintiff filed

5

as Docket No. 33-1. The clerk is directed to e-file the proposed amended complaint as the second

6

amended complaint. The Court will not permit any further amendment of the complaint pending

7

resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2016

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
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

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

CAROL THOMAS,

Case No. 15-cv-05504-HSG

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO, et
al.,
Defendants.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16

That on August 15, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

17
18
19

Carol Thomas
854 E Pacific Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94133

20
21

Dated: August 15, 2016

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
Nikki D. Riley, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

28
3