Matt Teglia v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER RE 17 STIPULATION ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MATT TEGLIA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 17-00014 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

14

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., et al.,

15

ORDER RE STIPULATION
ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.
/

16
17

On March 29, plaintiff in this action filed a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Allowing

18

Plaintiff to File First Amended Complaint” (Dkt. No. 17). On the same day, and without

19

waiting for court action on the proposed order, plaintiff also filed the amended complaint (Dkt.

20

No. 18). It is unclear whether plaintiff purports to amend “with the opposing party’s written

21

consent” or seeks to amend “with . . . the court’s leave.” See F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2). The stipulation

22

itself — spanning two pages inexplicably separated by a copy of the amended complaint —

23

seems to indicate that defendants have consented to the amendment. The stipulation, however,

24

fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), which requires plaintiff’s counsel to “attest that

25

concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from” defense counsel.

26
27
28

Insofar as plaintiff’s filing is a stipulated request for leave to file an amended complaint,
it is DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint, then plaintiff’s counsel must file a

1

corrected stipulation or request that fully complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

2

and our Local Rules.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: March 30, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2