Johnson v. Wang et al

Filing 30

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED ANSWER re 29 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim filed by Donald P Wang by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

GEORGE JOHNSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

CASE NO. C16-1738JLR
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED
ANSWER

12
DONALD P. WANG,

13

Defendant.

14
15

On August 20, 2017, pro se Defendant Donald P. Wang filed an amended answer

16

in which he asserts a counterclaim for fraud against Plaintiff George Johnson. (Am.

17

Answer (Dkt. # 29).) However, at the time Mr. Wang filed the amended answer, the

18

period for amendment as a matter of course had passed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), and Mr.

19

Wang did not have “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” to file the

20

amended answer, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); (see Dkt.). For these reasons, the court

21

STRIKES the amended answer (Dkt. # 29) as improperly filed. If Mr. Wang wishes to

22

//

ORDER - 1

1

amend his answer, he must do so in the manner set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 15(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

3

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2017.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2