Adams et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 27

ORDER STRIKING PLEADING re 25 Amended Complaint, filed by Granville McCollough, Patrick Tuohy, Lisette Adams. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/7/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

LISETTE ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.: 13-CV-4689 YGR
ORDER STRIKING PLEADING

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
The Court STRIKES Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed on January 2, 2014. (Dkt.

14

No. 25 ("SAC").) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party is permitted to amend a

15

pleading once as a matter of course, but thereafter "may amend its pleading only with the opposing

16

party's written consent or the court's leave." Here, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on October

17

9, 2013 (Dkt. No. 1), and, consistent with Rule 15(a)(1)(A), amended their complaint as a matter of

18

course twenty-one days later, on November 1, 2013 (Dkt. No. 11 ("FAC")). Defendants answered

19

the FAC on December 16, 2013 (Dkt. No. 19), and filed an amended answer the following day,

20

December 17, 2013 (Dkt. No. 20). On January 2, 2014, without seeking leave of the Court or filing

21

a stipulation or other memorandum of Defendants' written consent to amendment, Plaintiffs filed

22

the SAC. The SAC, having been filed in contravention of Rule 15, is without legal effect and is

23

hereby STRUCK. The FAC remains the operative complaint in this case. Defendants need not

24

answer the SAC. Nothing in this Order bars Plaintiffs from further seeking amendment of the FAC

25

consistent with Rule 15. The Clerk shall strike Docket No. 25 from the record.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 7, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE