Borges v. Seabulk Intl Inc et al
ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's motion 96 to amend. See attached order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 3/31/10. (Constantine, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT KIMBERLY BORGES, Plaintiff, v. SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : :
CASE NO. 3:04cv324(DFM)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND The plaintiff's motion amend the complaint (doc. #96) is denied without prejudice to refiling. Although the defendants
indicate that they do not object to the addition of Lightship Tankers V LLC as a defendant (doc. #104), the plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint. See Klemonski v.
Department of Correction, No. 3:09CV787(VLB), 2010 WL 729002, at *3 (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 2010)("To obtain the Court's permission to amend his complaint, the plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend and attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint."); Baldwin v. Department of Correction, No. 3:08cv1885(AVC), 2009 WL 1456489, at *1 (D. Conn. May 21, 2009)("[c]ommon sense dictates that a party requesting leave to file an amended pleading must accompany his motion with a copy of the proposed amended complaint that complies with the general rules of pleading in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)."); La Barbera v. Ferran Enterprises, Inc., No. CIV. A. 06-2678, 2009 WL 367611, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2009) ("In order to meet the requirements of particularity in a motion to amend, a complete copy
of the proposed amended complaint must accompany the motion so that both the Court and the opposing party can understand the exact changes sought"). Any motion for leave to amend the complaint
shall be filed by April 5, 2010 and have as an exhibit a copy of the proposed amended complaint. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 31st day of March, 2010. _________/s/__________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate 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?