Gater et al v. City of Jackson, Mississippi et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Strike Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 10/17/17 (RBM)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION DONALD GATER, BARBARA FOLSOM-MCNEAL, SEQUERNA BANKS, RANDY AVERY, AND JESSE ROBINSON VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-565-DPJ-FKB CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, ITS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AND THE JACKSON POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [6]. Defendants contend that the Amended Complaint should be stricken, as Plaintiffs failed to seek leave to amend and failed to include the proposed amended complaint as an exhibit to a motion. See [6]. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and L.U.Civ.R. 15. Id. Defendants’ arguments would prove correct had Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint per the procedure found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, here Plaintiffs amended their Complaint using the procedure found within Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), which states: (a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Defendants filed their Answer to the original complaint on July 20, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint nineteen days later on August 8, 2017, within the twenty-one days permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Because Plaintiffs did not need leave of the Court to file the Amended Complaint per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Uniform Civil Rule 15 is inapplicable. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion the Motion to Strike [6]. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees relating to this motion is unwarranted and therefore denies the same. IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of October, 2017. /s/ F. Keith Ball 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?