Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation et al
Filing
238
ORDER 235 Rejecting Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's original motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 227, remains the operative motion. The deadlines listed in the order setting the briefing schedule on the original motion, ECF No. 229, remain operative. The hearing on this matter shall remain scheduled for January 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/13/19.(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP,
Case No.: 17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
ROBERT ROSETTE; ROSETTE &
ASSOCIATES, PC; ROSETTE, LLP;
QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT
YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a
federally-recognized Indian tribe; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
15
16
17
18
[ECF No. 235]
Defendant.
19
20
Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP’s (“Plaintiff”) filed, without permission of the
21
Court, an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 22, 2019. ECF No.
22
235. The original motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on October 2, 2019.
23
ECF No. 227.
24
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a), “a party may amend its
25
pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed.”
26
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) specifically provides that a party may amend a
27
28
1
17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB
1
“pleading” and this term “must be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 7(a),” which
2
enumerates the pleadings permitted in federal practice as follows: a complaint, an answer
3
to the complaint, an answer to a counterclaim, an answer to a crossclaim, a third-party
4
complaint, an answer to a third-party complaint, and, pursuant to court order, a reply to
5
an answer. 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,
6
§ 1475 (3d ed.). While Rule 15(a) applies to each of the aforementioned pleadings, its
7
application does not extend to motions. See Albany Ins. Co. v. Almacenadora Somex,
8
S.A., 5 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1993).
9
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended motion for judgment on the pleadings is
10
STRICKEN. Plaintiff’s original motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 227,
11
remains the operative motion. The deadlines listed in the order setting the briefing
12
schedule on the original motion, ECF No. 229, remain operative. The hearing on this
13
matter shall remain scheduled for January 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2019
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB
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?