Lee v. Yellow Checker Star Transportation Taxi Management et al

Filing 42

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 38 motion to amend his complaint, titled a motion for service of summons, is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file their stipulated discovery plan on or before February 3, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 1/3/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

William Alexander Lee,

6

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8

Case No. 2:23-cv-00919-APG-DJA
Order

Yellow Checker Star Transportation Taxi
Management, et al.,

9
10

Defendants.

11
12

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order that service of summons be

13

made by the United States Marshals Service. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff appears to be asking to

14

amend his complaint and for the Court to order service of his amended complaint because he

15

attaches a motion to amend his complaint. (Id. at 6-9). Plaintiff does not attach a proposed

16

amended complaint to his motion, instead, his motion appears to include his proposed amended

17

claims. (Id.). Defendant Yellow Checker Star Transportation opposes Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF

18

No. 40). It argues that his motion to amend is procedurally improper because he does not attach a

19

proposed amendment as required by Local Rule 15-1(a). (Id.). 1 Plaintiff replies and explains that

20

he has mental health issues that make it difficult for him to engage in this case. (ECF No. 41).

21

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend because it is not procedurally proper. If

22

Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a motion to amend as required by Federal

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is futile because it seeks to reassert
claims the Court already dismissed. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff acknowledges this in reply, stating
that he intends to reassert those claims. (ECF No. 41). However, because the Court denies the
motion to amend on procedural grounds, the Court does not reach the merits of the motion to
amend.

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Under Local Rule 15-1(a), 2 that motion must attach the

2

proposed amended complaint. Under Local Rule 7-2, the motion to amend itself must include a

3

memorandum of points and authorities supporting his request to amend his complaint.
Additionally, Defendant has appeared in this case and filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF

4
5

No. 31). However, the parties have not yet filed a discovery plan and scheduling order as

6

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1. The Court will therefore

7

order the parties to file their stipulated discovery plan on or before February 3, 2025.

8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, titled a

10

motion for service of summons, (ECF No. 38) is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court

11

is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file their stipulated discovery plan on

12
13

or before February 3, 2025.

14
DATED: January 3, 2025

15
16

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

“Local Rule” refers to the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, which can be found online at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/rules-andorders/.
Page 2 of 2