Lopez v. Dascal

Filing 25

ORDER that the plaintiffs shall have until 1/15/2010 to show cause why the Second Amended Complaint should not be stricken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JSF)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA HILDA LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. IOAN DASCAL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 7:09CV5003 ORDER This matter is before the court sua sponte. On December 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 24). The plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint without leave of court or a motion seeking leave of court. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record the plaintiffs obtained written consent from the opposing party. Moreover, the plaintiffs' amended complaint appears as a voluntary dismissal of certain plaintiffs and their claims. Finally, the plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint outside the August 7, 2009, deadline for filing motions to amend. See Filing No. 15 - Initial Progression Order. For these reasons, the plaintiffs' filing is in violation of both the local and federal civil rules of procedure. See NECivR 15.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 16(b), and 41. Failure to comply with these rules may result in the court striking the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The court will allow the plaintiffs a brief period to either comply with rules of procedure or otherwise show cause why the amended complaint should not be stricken. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The plaintiffs shall have to on or before January 15, 2010, to show cause why the Second Amended Complaint should not be stricken. DATED this 4th day of January, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken 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?