Raifman et al v. Wachovia Securities, LLC et al
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying as moot 139 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 141 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 144 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; terminating 145 Stipulation (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY R. RAIFMAN and SUSAN
Case No: C 11-02885 SBA
7 RAIFMAN, husband and wife, individually
and on behalf of their marital community and
8 as Trustees of the RAIFMAN FAMILY
REVOCABLE INTERVIVOS TRUST and as
Docket 139, 141, 144, 145
9 beneficiaries of the PALLADIAN TRUST;
GEKKO HOLDINGS, LLC, and HELICON
10 INVESTMENTS, LTD.,
13 WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC, N/K/A
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC,
The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to File
Amendment to Second Amended Complaint by Interlineation under Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 144. Plaintiffs offer no authority in support of amending
the second amended complaint by interlineation. Rule 15 permits a party to amend or
supplement a pleading. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. "Amended pleadings relate to matters that
occurred prior to the filing of the original pleading and entirely replace the earlier pleading.
Supplemental pleadings deal with events subsequent to the pleading to be altered and
represent additions to or continuations of the earlier pleadings." Brook v. Sing, 2012 WL
78417, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice &
Procedure, Chp. 4, § 1504 (3d ed.) (2011)); Frederick v. California Dept. of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, 2012 WL 2077305, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
In the instant motion, Plaintiffs do not seek to supplement their pleading by adding
facts relating to events taking place after the filing of the second amended complaint.
Instead, they seek to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). As such, the Court
construes Plaintiffs' motion as a motion to file a third amended complaint. Under Rule 15
(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or
the Court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). "This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, because
Plaintiffs have obtained Defendant's written consent to amend the second amended
complaint, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs shall file a third amended
complaint no later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed. Because an
amended complaint supersedes the previously filed complaint in its entirety, see Forsyth v.
Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds,
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), Defendant's motion to
strike the second amended complaint, Dkt. 139, and motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, Dkt. 141, are DENIED as MOOT. This Order terminates Docket 139, Docket
141, Docket 144, and Docket 145.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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?