Nicole Flick v. M.I. Industries, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's first amended complaint, which was filed after the deadline for amending as a matter of course had passed. The court granted the motion, striking the amended complaint and ordering the plaintiff to either seek leave to amend or respond to the pending motion to dismiss by July 20, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's first amended complaint is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 16.) The Court STRIKES the Amended Complaint as improperly filed. (ECF No. 14)” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), which allows one amendment as a matter of course within 21 days after a Rule 12(b) motion is filed. The record shows the motion to dismiss was filed on May 29, 2026, making the deadline June 16, 2026. The plaintiff filed the amended complaint on June 29, 2026, which is outside the 21-day window. Therefore, the amendment was not proper as a matter of course, and striking it is the appropriate procedural remedy. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule, calculates the deadline based on the dates provided in the docket, and applies the rule to the facts. The citation to Sexton supports the remedy of striking the improperly filed complaint. The order also provides clear next steps for the plaintiff, preserving their right to seek leave to amend or respond to the original motion to dismiss.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLE FLICK, Case No. 26-cv-1470-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 16) 14 M.I. INDUSTRIES, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Instead 18 of opposing, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 14), and the Court issued a 19 summons, (ECF No. 15). 20 Upon review, the amended complaint was improperly filed pursuant to Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Rule 15 permits one amendment as a matter of course no 22 later than 21 days after a Rule 12(b) motion has been filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 23 Here, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on May 29, 2026; the ability to amend as a matter 24 of course ended on June 16, 2026. And Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on June 25 29, 2026, around ten days too late. 26 27 28 I Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 16.) The 2 Court STRIKES the Amended Complaint as improperly filed. (ECF No. 14); see, e.g., 3 || Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00898-TLN-AC, 2022 WL 976914, at *2 (E.D. 4 || Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (striking the plaintiff's first amended complaint as “improperly filed” 5 || pursuant to Rule 15). 6 Plaintiff may still amend with Defendant’s written consent or leave of court. Plaintiff 7 until July 20, 2026, to make such requests. 8 In the event Plaintiff does not amend, Plaintiff must respond to Defendant’s motion 9 dismiss on or before July 20, 2026, or seek leave for additional time to respond. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || DATED: July 13, 2026 (yatta Bahar B H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28