Smith v. Brangwynne
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for a more definite statement filed by defendants in a civil rights case where the plaintiff had filed a document in response that appeared to be a draft second amended complaint but was incomplete. The court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered the plaintiff to file a complete second amended complaint by January 31, 2020, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for More Definite Statement denied without prejudice“Given that Plaintiff is being granted leave to file an SAC, the motion for more definite statement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to manage the case by allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his pleading rather than ruling on the motion for a more definite statement. This is a common procedural mechanism to ensure the plaintiff has a full opportunity to state a claim before the court addresses specific pleading deficiencies. |
Deadline set for filing Second Amended Complaint“Plaintiff shall file an SAC by January 31, 2020.” | agree with court The court identified that the plaintiff's recent filing was incomplete (missing causes of action present in the prior complaint) and treated it as an attempt to amend. Granting a deadline to file a complete amended complaint is a standard exercise of case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's filing as an incomplete attempt to amend, cites the correct local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the superseding nature of amended pleadings and the waiver of unpled claims, and provides a clear deadline with a specific consequence for non-compliance. The denial of the motion without prejudice is appropriate given the court's decision to allow the amendment.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS SMITH, Case No.: 19cv620-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT [Doc. No. 14 DEPUTY K. BRANGWYNNE, et al., 10] AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR 15 Defendant. FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 17 On October 24, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for more definite statement. 18 [Doc. No. 10.] On December 2, 2019, in granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 19 oppose Defendants’ motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file either an opposition to the 20 motion or a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. No. 14.] On December 20, 21 2019, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s More Definite Statement with Declaration in Support 22 Thereof [Doc. No. 23], which is filed as a response to the motion but is in the format of a 23 complaint. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff is intending to file an SAC. However, the 24 document he has filed [Doc. No. 23] only has one cause of action, while the First 25 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 6] has three causes of action. 26 In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final 27 opportunity to file an SAC. Plaintiff shall file an SAC by January 31, 2020. Plaintiff is 28 1 || cautioned that the SAC must be complete in itself without reference to his original 2 || pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Second Amended 3 ||Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. 4 Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 5 || pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 6 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 7 ||amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.’’) 8 Given that Plaintiff is being granted leave to file an SAC, the motion for more 9 || definite statement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff does not file an 10 ||SAC by January 31, 2020, the case will be dismissed without prejudice and without 11 || further court order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 3, 2020 € 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28