Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc. et al

Filing 66

ORDER. IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike, Docket No. 28 , is hereby GRANTED. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk's office to strike Plaintiff's second amended complaint, Docket No. 21 . Plaintiff's first amended complaint, Docket No. 5 , remains the operative complaint in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/6/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)

Case 2:21-cv-01302-GMN-NJK Document 66 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

SANDRA TOCCI,

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01302-GMN-NJK

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

8

v.

9

CORECIVIC, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

[Docket No. 28]

Pending before the Court is a motion to strike Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed

12 by Defendants CoreCivic, Inc., CoreCivic of Tennessee, and Brian Koehn (“Defendants”). Docket
13 No. 28. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 38, 39.
14 This motion is properly resolved without a hearing. Local Rule 78-1.
15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amending pleadings. Federal Rule 15(a)

16 provides that a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” either within 21 days of
17 serving the pleading or, if a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days of being served with a
18 12(b), (e), or (f) motion. For any further amendments, a party may not amend its pleading without
19 either “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b).
20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits courts to “strike from a pleading an

21 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The Court
22 also has inherent authority to strike improper filings “to promulgate and enforce rules for the
23 management of litigation. . . .” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995); see also
24 LR IA 10-1(d).
25

Here, Plaintiff already amended her complaint once as of right when she filed her first

26 amended complaint. Docket No. 5. The Court has not been provided meaningful argument or
27 evidence to support a finding that she met the 15(b) standard of obtaining either the Court’s leave
28
1

Case 2:21-cv-01302-GMN-NJK Document 66 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2

1 or the opposing party’s written consent before filing her second amended complaint.1 Therefore,
2 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was improperly filed and is a rogue document. The Court
3 will STRIKE Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
4

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike, Docket No. 28, is hereby GRANTED. The

5 Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s office to strike Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, Docket No.
6 21. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Docket No. 5, remains the operative complaint in this
7 action.
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: May 6, 2022
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that she was not served with
Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the notification went into her attorney’s spam folder.
28 Docket No. 38 at 3. See LR IC 4-1(b).
2