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)

Download PDF
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

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?