Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation et al

Filing 97

ORDER Denying as Moot 71 Motion to Supplement Complaint and Setting Pleadings Schedule. The hearing set for July 6, 2018 is vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/26/18. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, et al.,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
COMPLAINT AND SETTING
PLEADINGS SCHEDULE

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT
YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

[ECF No. 71]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs to supplement their pleadings. (ECF No.
71.) Prior to the completion of the briefing on this motion, the Court issued a ruling on
Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed without prejudice a
significant portion of the operative complaint. (ECF No. 89.) In the ruling, the Court
explained that because this motion to supplement the complaint was pending, the Court
would wait to rule on this motion before setting a deadline by which Plaintiffs needed to
file a second amended complaint. (Id. at 39.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides that the Court may “permit a party
to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit
supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or
1
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

defense.” In their proposed supplementation of the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that

2

certain Defendants sent an unredacted version of sealed filings from this case to members

3

of another tribe represented by Williams & Cochrane. (ECF No. 71-1 at 11–13.)

4

Plaintiffs seek to use these allegations to support their RICO claims. (Id. at 4, 13–14.)

5

In response to the motion, Defendants1 argue that because the Court has dismissed

6

the operative complaint in this case, there is nothing to “supplement,” and as a result the

7

pending motion to supplement is moot. (ECF No. 91 at 2.) The Court agrees. The

8

purpose of a motion to supplement is to add allegations of events that occur “after the

9

date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The events discussed in

10

the proposed supplemental complaint will have occurred prior to, not after, the filing of

11

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. As a result, Defendants are correct that there is

12

nothing to supplement, rendering the pending motion moot. See Patten v. Brown, No. C

13

11-2057 LHK (PR), 2012 WL 1669350, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2012) (dismissing as

14

moot motion to supplement after the Court dismissed without prejudice the operative

15

complaint).

16

The Court DENIES as moot the motion to supplement the complaint. (ECF No.

17

71.) Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint on or before July 20, 2018. The

18

deadline for responsive pleadings shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil

19

Procedure and this Court’s Local Civil Rules. This order shall not be construed as

20

limiting in any way Plaintiffs’ ability to include the allegations found in the proposed

21

supplemental complaint (see ECF No. 71-1 at 7–14) in their second amended complaint.
In their reply memorandum, Plaintiffs request that the Court “explicitly grant leave

22
23

to amend to use the existing and new allegations in the Sixth Claim for Relief to state an

24

interference with contract-type claim against Rosette.” (ECF No. 93 at 5.) This request

25
26
27
28

The Rosette Defendants filed a “statement of position” in response to the motion to supplement. (ECF
No. 91.) The remaining defendants filed a notice that they joined the Rosette Defendants’ statement of
position. (ECF No. 92.)
1

2
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

is procedurally improper. Such a request would have to be presented in a properly

2

noticed motion. It would be unfair to Defendants for the Court to declare that Plaintiffs

3

may pursue a hypothetical claim without allowing Defendants to offer any argument in

4

response. What’s more, any analysis provided by the Court in so ordering would be pure

5

speculation. Cf. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 15.1(b) (requiring a motion to amend to be

6

accompanied by “a copy of the proposed amended pleading”). The Court declines

7

Plaintiffs’ request.

8

The hearing set for July 6, 2018, is hereby VACATED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: June 26, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD