Hoffman v. Verizon Wireless et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION deferring ruling on 15 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/27/2011. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

BRENT DAVID HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DEFERRING RULING AND
ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
PROPOSED AMENDED
COMPLAINT

vs.

VERIZON WIRELESS, BRADLY
SUMMERS, JESSICA BARRON,
ANTHONY BOWMAN, AL RINGGOLD,
ED FLOWER, BRIAN CERVINSKI, JULIE
EVES, JEANEEN DAVIS AND RYAN
WARNER,

Case No. 2:10-CV-1170 TS

Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiff Brent David Hoffman’s Motion to Amend Above
Entitled Case of Discrimination.1 Plaintiff’s Motion abstractly discusses the amendments he
hopes to include in his amended complaint and attaches a copy of a “Notice of Right to Sue”
issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). As this Court has stated

1

Docket No. 15.
1

previously, however, “[i]n order to file a successful motion to amend his complaint, Plaintiff
must include, with the motion, a copy of his proposed amended complaint.”2 Simply discussing
the proposed changes and attaching the “Notice of Right to Sue” is insufficient. “Plaintiff must
incorporate the changes he wishes to make in his complaint, then provide the court with the
amended complaint, in its entirety.”3
To expedite this matter, the Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend until a
proposed amended complaint is filed with the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to file his proposed
amended complaint, which incorporates all changes he wishes to make to his original complaint,
with the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Once Plaintiff files his
proposed amended complaint, Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days to file an amended
response, if any. Once this additional briefing is completed, the Court will rule on the merits of
Plaintiff’s Motion. Should Plaintiff fail to file his proposed amended complaint within the
specified time, the Court will subsequently deny the motion.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED June 27, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

2

Franke v. ARUP Lab., 2008 WL 3192618, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 06, 2008).

3

Id.
2