Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Sharon Rosette (2024-04-17) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's unpermitted amended motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ordered the amended motion stricken and declared the original motion the operative one.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's amended motion for judgment on the pleadings is stricken.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended motion for judgment on the pleadings is STRICKEN.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and Rule 7(a) to determine that motions are not 'pleadings' subject to amendment as a matter of course. The reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent (Albany Ins. Co.) supports the conclusion that the plaintiff lacked the authority to file an amended motion without leave of court. |
Plaintiff's original motion for judgment on the pleadings remains the operative motion.“Plaintiff's original motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 227, remains the operative motion.” | agree with court This is a necessary procedural consequence of striking the unauthorized amended motion. The court correctly preserved the status quo of the briefing schedule and hearing date. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that Rule 15(a) applies only to pleadings as defined by Rule 7(a) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority to support the exclusion of motions from this rule. The reasoning is concise and directly answers the procedural defect in the plaintiff's filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, Case No.: 17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. AMENDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 ROBERT ROSETTE; ROSETTE & ASSOCIATES, PC; ROSETTE, LLP; 15 [ECF No. 235] QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT 16 YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a federally-recognized Indian tribe; and 17 DOES 1 THROUGH 100, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP’s (“Plaintiff”) filed, without permission of the 21 Court, an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 22, 2019. ECF No. 22 235. The original motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on October 2, 2019. 23 ECF No. 227. 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a), “a party may amend its 25 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) specifically provides that a party may amend a 27 1 || “pleading” and this term “must be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 7(a),” which 2 ||enumerates the pleadings permitted in federal practice as follows: a complaint, an answer 3 || to the complaint, an answer to a counterclaim, an answer to a crossclaim, a third-party 4 ||complaint, an answer to a third-party complaint, and, pursuant to court order, a reply to 5 answer. 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 6 ||§ 1475 (3d ed.). While Rule 15(a) applies to each of the aforementioned pleadings, its 7 || application does not extend to motions. See Albany Ins. Co. v. Almacenadora Somex, 8 5 F.3d 907, 911 (Sth Cir. 1993). 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended motion for judgment on the pleadings is 10 || STRICKEN. Plaintiff's original motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 227, 11 ||remains the operative motion. The deadlines listed in the order setting the briefing 12 schedule on the original motion, ECF No. 229, remain operative. The hearing on this 13 || matter shall remain scheduled for January 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 13, 2019 <= 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17-CV-01436-GPC-MSB