Hano v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 62 Plaintiffs Motion Seeking Permission to Add a Supplemental Claim to this Action Pursuant to Rule 15(d) F.R.C.P. is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a Renewed Motion to Supplement his First Amended Complaint but must do so no later than 5/25/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DAVID A. HANO,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02246-GMN-EJY
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Permission to Add a Supplemental
Claim to this Action Pursuant to Rule 15(d) F.R.C.P. ECF No. 62. No opposition to this Motion
was filed by Defendants.
Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits Plaintiff to “serve a supplemental
pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading
to be supplemented” on motion and reasonable notice. The goal of FRCP 15(d) is to promote judicial
efficiency. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). While courts “favor” supplemental
pleading, id. at 473, Plaintiff cannot use Rule 15(d) to introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause
of action.” Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co, 30 F. Supp. 101, 102 (D. Mo.1939); see also § 1509
Supplemental Pleadings—Time of Filing; Responsive Pleading, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1509
(3d ed.) (noting that a court may deny leave to supplement “when the matters alleged in the
supplemental pleading could be the subject of a separate action.”).
The factors the Court evaluated to determine whether to grant a motion to supplement are
the same as those considered when the Court is presented with a motion to amend a complaint. Lyon
v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 308 F.R.D. 203, 214 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Thus, the five factors
most commonly used in evaluating a motion to supplement are: “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, (3) repeated failure of previous amendments, (4) undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of the amendment.” Id. Among the factors, prejudice
to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Id.
The Court notes that Local Rule 7-2(d) states, in pertinent part, that “The failure of an
opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, …, constitutes a consent to
the granting of the motion.” Here, although no opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion was filed by
Defendants, Plaintiff fails to identify the facts and/or claims he seeks to add to his operative First
Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if the supplementation requested
properly falls within Rule 15(d).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Permission to Add
a Supplemental Claim to this Action Pursuant to Rule 15(d) F.R.C.P. (ECF No. 62) is DENIED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a Renewed Motion to Supplement his
First Amended Complaint but must do so no later than May 25, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff’s chooses to Refile his Motion to Supplement
his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must attach a copy of the Supplemented First Amended
Complaint to his Motion and identify in his Motion all those paragraphs or portions thereof in his
First Amended Complaint that he supplemented.
Plaintiff is advised to review Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
requires Plaintiff to state, as he has successfully done in his First Amended Complaint, a short plain
statement of his claims demonstrating that if he is successful in proving his claims he would be
entitled to relief. Every fact in support of a cause of action need not be stated in a complaint.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2021.
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
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?