Vogt v. Raymond James Financial Services Inc

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/30/09 striking from the record 14 plaintiff's filing purporting to amend her Amended Complaint. (cc: plaintiff, all counsel)(nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ D O N N A MARIE VOGT, P l a i n t if f , v. R A Y M O N D JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., T E R R A N C E A. BOSTIC, JOHN STEPHEN PUTNAM, U S BANCORP, EMMANUAL MAMALAKIS, D A V ID COHEN, JOHN HYLAND, GREGORY EVERTS, a n d SAMUEL EDGERTON, D e fe n d a n ts . ____________________________________________ Case No. 09-CV-83

ORDER
O n January 22, 2009, plaintiff filed this action in the Green Bay Division of the E a s te rn District of W is c o n s in . On January 27, 2009, Judge Griesbach, finding that th e case had no connection to the Green Bay Division, transferred the case to the M ilw a u k e e Division. Subsequently, on March 17, 2009, prior to any responsive p le a d in g s from defendants, plaintiff amended her complaint. Then, on April 14, 2 0 0 9 , plaintiff sought to amend her complaint, yet again, by mailing the court various p a g e s with instructions to replace portions of the amended complaint with these new pages. F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) states that "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course: before being served with a responsive p le a d in g ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Given that the plaintiff has a lre a d y amended her complaint once as a matter of course on March 17, 2009,

p la in tiff must now seek leave of the court, or defendants' written consent, to amend h e r complaint again. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Furthermore, plaintiff's attempt to a m e n d her complaint piecemeal, instead of submitting an amended complaint in its e n tire ty, is a direct violation of Civil Local Rule 15.1, which states: "Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon motion to amend, must re p ro d u c e the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior p le a d in g by reference." Civil L.R. 15.1. F o r plaintiff's benefit, the court also notes that it is aware that, as a pro se litig a n t, plaintiff is unable to e-file pleadings and briefs with the court. However, p la in tiff should be aware that she may simply convert her electronic documents into P D F format, save them to a CD, and then mail that CD in with her paper submission w h e n e ve r she submits a pleading or brief. Then the clerk's office will e-file those s u b m is s io n s for plaintiff. Presently, pro se plaintiffs are not required to submit p le a d in g s and briefs in electronic format; however, failure to do so imposes an o n e ro u s burden on the court's staff; not to mention the clerk's office. Documents c o n ve rte d to PDF format are electronically searchable and greatly aid the court in re s o lvin g cases in a timely manner. Thus, the court strongly urges, though does not re q u ire , that plaintiff submit all future pleadings and briefs not only in paper format, b u t also in PDF electronically searchable format. A c c o r d in g ly ,

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's filing (Docket #14), purporting to amend her A m e n d e d Complaint, be and the same is hereby STRUCK from the record in this c a se . D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 30th day of April, 2009. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-3-