Middleton v. Omely Telecom Corp a/k/a Pro Tax and Accounting

Filing 19

ORDER that all parties other than Plaintiff Ervin Middleton and Defendant Omely Telecom Corp. shall be removed from the CM/ECF service list. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff obtaining proper leave of court to file an amended complaint if he desires to do so. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff's 8 First Amended Complaint and the 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , and 18 Summons. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff's 16 - 17 Erratas. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ERVIN MIDDLETON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) OMELY TELECOM CORP., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-01369-APG-GWF ORDER 13 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), filed on September 5, 2017. 16 On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 17 ECF No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Application and screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. The Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently pled a claim under 19 the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Defendant Omely Telecom Corp and instructed the 20 Clerk of the Court to file the complaint, issue summons to Defendant, and deliver the summons to 21 the U.S. Marshal for service. On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint 22 without leave of court. He added new parties including an additional plaintiff and ten additional 23 defendants. Plaintiff further alleged additional claims in his first amended complaint. The new 24 parties and additional claims are unrelated to the allegations that the Court screened in Plaintiff’s 25 complaint. On September 15, 2017 and September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed Erratas (ECF Nos. 16, 26 17) to his amended complaint. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that after the time for amendment as a matter of course has 28 expired, a party may amend its complaint only by leave of court or by the adverse party’s written 1 consent. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint without leave of court as required under Fed. 2 R. Civ. P. 15 and it, therefore, has no legal effect. Ritzer v. Gerovicap Pharm. Corp., 162 F.R.D. 3 642, 644 (D. Nev. 1995). The Court orders, sua sponte, that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, 4 the corresponding summons, and erratas to the amended complaint be stricken for failure to comply 5 with Rule 15(a). All parties other than Plaintiff Ervin Middleton and Defendant Omely Telecom 6 Corp. shall be removed from the CM/ECF service list. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff 7 obtaining proper leave of court to file an amended complaint, if he desires to do so. Accordingly, 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) and the corresponding summons (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s Erratas (ECF Nos. 16, 17). DATED this 19th day of September, 2017. 13 14 15 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?