Smith v. Payne et al

Filing 45

ORDER Striking 44 First Amended Complaint filed by Gwendolyn Smith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/07/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ig, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GWENDOLYN SMITH, 9 Plaintiff(s), PAUL PAYNE, 12 ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 11 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 13 14 Plaintiffs Gwendolyn Smith and Zeus Harrison Smith filed their Complaint on April 6, 2012. [Docket No. 1.] Defendants Paul Payne and Halifax California, LLC dba The Press Democrat filed 16 their answer on September 17, 2012. [Docket No. 28.] On November 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their 17 First Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 44.] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “[a] 18 party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if 19 the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive 20 pleading . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Once this 21-day period has passed, as is the case here, “a 21 party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). There is no indication that Plaintiffs obtained Defendants’ consent, nor did 23 the court grant Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the court hereby 24 STRIKES Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. RT H ER FO DONNA M. RYU yu United States MagistrateaJudge n M. R dge Don Ju R NIA ERED NO 28 O ORD IT IS S LI 27 Dated: November 7, 2012 A 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 25 S 15 UNIT ED For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 12-01732 DMR N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?