Miller v. Stanford Health Care et al

Filing 41

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Re: Dkt. No. 40 . Miller is ordered to show cause by 1/20/2016, why the Court should permit her first amended complaint. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/13/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DANIELLE MILLER,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No.15-cv-02389 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 40
STANFORD HEALTH CARE, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Miller filed a first amended complaint on

17

January 11, 2016, without requesting leave from the Court or consent from the defendants

18

to do so. Dkt. No. 40.

19

Rule 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter

20

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . Otherwise a party may

21

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

22

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

23

Under this rule, Miller could amend her complaint only by leave of court or by written

24

consent, because a responsive pleading was served on July 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 20.

25
26
27
28

Moreover, under Rule 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause
and with the judge’s consent.” This Court’s order at docket 35 set a scheduling order that
required pleadings to be amended by November 2, 2015. Further, the Court dismissed
some of the defendants from the case in its order at docket 21. Miller has failed to show
Case No. 15-cv-02389 NC

1

good cause why the Court’s previous scheduling order should be modified, or why she has

2

included defendants that the Court has dismissed from the case.

3

Here, Miller did not file a stipulation or motion for leave to file her first amended

4

complaint, and the document “therefore has no legal effect.” Ritzer v. Gerovicap Pharm.

5

Corp., 162 F.R.D. 642, 644 (D. Nev. 1995); Hoover v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 855 F.2d

6

1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff improperly filed amended complaint so amended

7

complaint had no legal effect).

8
9

Therefore, Miller is ordered to show cause by January 20, 2016, why the Court
should permit her first amended complaint.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: January 13, 2016

14

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 15-cv-02389 NC

2