Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 409

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 406 Administrative Motion for Leave to Amend, 407 Administrative Motion to Clarify Obligations, and 408 Motion for More Definite Statement. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2021)

Case 3:18-cv-03748-JCS Document 409 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA
DREVALEVA,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-03748-JCS
ORDER DENYING VARIOUS
MOTIONS

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 406, 407, 408

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff’s administrative motion for leave to amend (dkt. 406) is DENIED. A motion for

16

leave to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be brought as a motion

17

noticed for a hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-2, not an administrative motion under Civil Local

18

Rule 7-11. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot amend by right without bringing such a motion. Rule 15

19

allows amendment of a complaint by right under the following circumstances:

20

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

21

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service
of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

22
23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint was served in August of 2018. See dkt. 22. The

24

twenty-one-day deadline after service of the complaint has therefore long expired. And while

25

Defendants only filed and served a responsive pleading—their answer (dkt. 396)—relatively

26

recently, they filed and served a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) in October of 2018. Dkt. 34.

27

Since Rule 15(a)(1)(B) sets a deadline of twenty-one days after either service of a responsive

28

pleading or service of a motion under Rule 12, “whichever is earlier,” the deadline here is based

Case 3:18-cv-03748-JCS Document 409 Filed 06/14/21 Page 2 of 2

1

on the motion to dismiss, and expired in 2018. Plaintiff therefore must file a noticed motion under

2

Civil Local Rule 7-2 seeking leave under Rule 15(a)(2) or Rule 15(d) if she wishes to amend or

3

supplement her complaint.

4

Plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement (dkt. 408) of Defendants’ answer is

5

DENIED. Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to “move for a more

6

definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or

7

ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” An answer is not “a pleading to

8

which a responsive pleading is allowed”; it is itself a “responsive pleading.” Plaintiff need not

9

prepare a response to the answer, and thus cannot bring a motion under Rule 12(e). Regardless,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants’ answer sufficiently admits or denies each allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff’s “Administrative Motion to Clarify Whether or Not [She] Should File a Reply to

12

Defendants’ June 04, 2021 Answer” (dkt. 407) seeks legal advice from the Court. The Court

13

cannot provide legal advice to the parties, and a party may not bring a motion seeking such advice.

14

The motion is therefore DENIED.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2