Slaughter v. Escamilla et al
ORDER DENYING as moot ECF No. 24 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 11/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ESCAMILLA, et al.,
MINUTES OF THE COURT
November 13, 2017
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Factual Paragraphs within Plaintiff’s First
Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint as Admitted (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff requests
the court to deem paragraphs 1-16 under Count III in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as admitted
because “Defendants failed to respond to these factual paragraphs in their Answer.” (Id. at 2.)
Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s motion stating “Defendants have filed an Amended Answer to
Plaintiff’s Supplemental and Civil Rights Complaint. In the Amended Answer, Defendants respond
to and deny Count III of the Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 28.)
On October 31, 2017, this court denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion that this court screen new
Count III. (ECF No. 27.) This court determined that because Defendants had previously filed an
Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff’s motion for screening
and compelling Defendants to answer Count III (ECF No. 23) was moot. (ECF No. 27.)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading if filed within 21 days after service of the
original pleading. Rule 15(a)(1)(A). The Defendants’ original answer was filed on October 5, 2017.
(ECF No. 20.) The Defendants’ Amended Answer was filed on October 30, 2017. (ECF No. 25.)
Thus, it appears Defendants should technically have either sought consent of the Plaintiff or leave
of court to file the Amended Answer. Rule 15(a)(2).
Minutes of the Court
November 13, 2017
Assuming that Plaintiff would not have consented, had Defendants sought leave of court,
Rule 15(a)(2) states the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” (emphasis added)
Inasmuch as the court has previously denied Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 23) to compel
Defendants to answer Count III, and inasmuch as Defendants have filed their Amended Answer to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Factual Paragraphs
within Plaintiff’s First Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint as Admitted
(ECF No. 24) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
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?