Houston v. Gershman Investment Corp. et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint [ECF No. 6 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 07/25/2013. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VIVIAN HOUSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERSHMAN INVESTMENT CORP.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV01338 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. The Court dismissed this action on July 18, 2013, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court will deny the motion.
First, the Court notes that plaintiff’s “right to amend as a matter of course ended
with the entry of the judgment of dismissal.” Fearon v.Henderson, 756 F.2d 267, 267
(2nd Cir. 1985), overruled on other grounds by Campos v. LeFevre, 825 F.2d 671
(2nd Cir. 1985); see United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Mesker Bros.
Industries, Inc., 457 F.2d 91, 93 (8th Cir. 1972). Second, to obtain leave to file an
amended complaint, “a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its
motion.” Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see
Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir.1983) (“Absent some indication as to

what might be added to the complaint to make it viable, the [moving party] is not
entitled to leave to amend.”). Plaintiff has not done so. Finally, the Court has reviewed
the allegations in the motion to amend and finds that plaintiff has wholly failed to allege
facts or law that would support a finding that this Court has subject matter over her
claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint [ECF No. 6] is DENIED.
So Ordered this 25th day of July, 2013.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-