Sanchez v. Fridel LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER: Sanchez's motion for an extension of time to December 20, 2019, to amend her complaint 35 is DENIED. Sanchez's motion to amend her complaint 35 is GRANTED. The complaint filed on November 21, 2019 38 , the second amended complai nt, is DEEMED FILED and is the controlling complaint in this case. Defendants motion to strike the second amended complaint 45 is DENIED. Ruling is RESERVED on Sanchez's motion to strike or objection to release of file 32 . See order for additional deadlines/details. The schedule imposed on August 13, 2019 (Doc. 26), is STAYED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan on 11/27/2019. (ASG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION

KRISSY SANCHEZ,

Cause No. CV 18-91-BLG-SPW-TJC

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

FRIDEL LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

On October 1, 2019, on Plaintiff Sanchez’s motion, the Court extended
deadlines in this case. The parties’ time to file disclosure statements was extended
from mid-October to November 7, 2019. The time to file a motion to amend the
pleadings was extended from November 8 to November 21, 2019. See Scheduling
Order (Doc. 26) at 1, 5; Order (Doc. 31) at 2 ¶¶ 1–2.
On November 8, 2019, Sanchez filed a motion aimed at three cases and
making several requests. See Pl. Mot. (Doc. 35). It is not clear that she was
referring to her complaint in this case, but she stated that she wanted to amend her
complaint “to clarify which friedels she meant when she said friedels” and to
“clarify generic words and frame each person’s actions.” She says her original
pleadings “did say what the actions were.” See Pl. Mot. (Doc. 35) at 3–4 (“Motion
2”), 4 (“Motion 5”). Sanchez filed the motion well in advance of the extended
1

November 21 deadline for amending the pleadings. She also requested an
extension of time to December 20, 2019, “to turn in amended complaints” in this
and another case. See id. at 4 (“Motion 5”).
On November 21, 2019, the day she filed her reply in support of her motion,
Sanchez filed a 17-page, single-spaced second amended complaint (Doc. 38) with
50 pages of exhibits (Doc. 38-1).
The following day, November 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the grounds that they were not acting “under color of state
law” as required for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And on November 25, 2019,
they filed a motion to strike Sanchez’s second amended complaint.
Sanchez timely moved to amend her complaint. Although she should have
attached her proposed second amended complaint to her motion to amend on
November 8, 2019, she submitted the new pleading on the deadline. Her motion to
amend the complaint will be granted. The second amended complaint (Doc. 38)
will be the controlling pleading.
The Court intends to consider Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
before it addresses any other issue. It will construe the motion to address any
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations. Sanchez will have an
opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ legal arguments. In their reply,
Defendants will have an opportunity to address any allegations in the second
2

amended complaint that might alter their legal analysis of the federal claims. But
if the reply raises new issues to which Sanchez should have an opportunity to
respond, the Court will give her that opportunity.
The Court notes that the second amended complaint alleges a civil RICO
violation. The Court will address that claim after briefing is complete on the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claims and will issue one
Findings and Recommendation addressing all federal claims.

Based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
ORDER
1. Sanchez’s motion for an extension of time to December 20, 2019, to
amend her complaint (Doc. 35) is DENIED.
2. Sanchez’s motion to amend her complaint (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.
3. The complaint filed on November 21, 2019 (Doc. 38), the second
amended complaint, is DEEMED FILED and is the controlling complaint in this
case.
4. Defendants’ motion to strike the second amended complaint (Doc. 45) is
DENIED.
5. Ruling is RESERVED on Sanchez’s motion to strike or objection to
release of file (Doc. 32).
6. On or before December 20, 2019, Sanchez may respond to the
3

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41). Sanchez’s response must be
limited to 6500 words and may address only Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment in this case. Defendants may reply per L.R. 7.1.
7. Other than a motion for extension of time, neither party may submit
additional motions at this time.
8. The schedule imposed on August 13, 2019 (Doc. 26), is STAYED.
Plaintiff must immediately advise the Court of any change in her mailing or
email address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action without notice
to her.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2019.

/s/ Timothy J. Cavan
Timothy J. Cavan
United States Magistrate Judge

4