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)

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