Nesbitt v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER denying without prejudice 23 plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. Rule 26 Meeting Report Deadline set for 3/21/2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (CLS, )

Download PDF
-FG3 Nesbitt v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA DEBRA NESBITT, et al., Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:10cv3169 ORDER This case is before the magistrate judge for full pretrial supervision. The parties' Rule 26(f) planning report is more than three weeks overdue. This morning, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Amend Complaint to Name Additional Defendant" (Doc. 23). The motion is deficient, in that the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of NECivR 15.1(a), which provides: Form and Content. A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading (including a request to add parties) must file as an attachment to the motion an unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading that clearly identifies the proposed amendments. Except as stated in these rules or court order, the proposed amended pleading must be a complete pleading that, if allowed to be filed, supersedes the original pleading in all respects; no part of the prior pleading may be incorporated into the proposed amended pleading by reference. The motion for leave to amend must (1) specifically state the proposed amendments and (2) state whether the motion is unopposed or opposed, after conferring with opposing parties. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Complaint to Name Additional Defendant" (Doc. 23) is denied, without prejudice, for plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirements of NECivR 15.1(a). 2. Counsel shall confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and file their planning report no later than March 21, 2011. DATED March 3, 2011. BY THE COURT: s/ F.A. Gossett, III 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?