Frantz v. Force Factor, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was filed without complying with the timing or consent requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court sua sponte struck the First Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Sua sponte strike of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint“Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES Plaintiff's FAC.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The record establishes that the original complaint was served on June 12, 2020, and the First Amended Complaint was filed on July 15, 2020. This exceeds the 21-day window for amending as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(A). No responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion had been filed, so Rule 15(a)(1)(B) did not apply. The order notes that Plaintiff did not obtain Defendant's written consent or the Court's leave as required by Rule 15(a)(2). Therefore, the amendment was procedurally improper, and striking the filing is a standard and appropriate remedy for a non-compliant amendment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the relevant dates from the docket and the joint motion, applies the specific subsections of Rule 15(a) to those facts, and concludes that the amendment was not permitted. The citation to Fuentes supports the court's authority to act sua sponte. The reasoning is direct and answers the procedural defect with the correct rule.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC FRANTZ, Case No. 20-cv-1012-MMA (KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE STRIKING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 FORCE FACTOR, LLC, 15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 8] 16 17 18 19 20 Eric Frantz (“Plaintiff”) filed his action on June 1, 2020. See Doc. No. 1. In their 21 joint motion to extend time to respond to the Complaint, Plaintiff and Force Factor, LLC 22 (“Defendant”) stated that Defendant “was served with the Complaint on June 12, 2020.” 23 Doc. No. 6 at 2. The Court granted the joint motion. See Doc. No. 7. However, Plaintiff 24 filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 15, 2020. See Doc. No. 8. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states, in part, the following: 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / (a) Amendments Before Trial. 2 (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading 3 once as a matter of course within: 4 (A) 21 days after serving it, or 5 (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 6 required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 7 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 8 whichever is earlier. 9 (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its 10 pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's 11 leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 12 13 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)H(2). 14 Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 15’s amendment requirements. As to Rule 15 ||15(a)(1)(A), Defendant “was served with the Complaint on June 12, 2020,” Doc. No. 6 at 16 ||2, and Plaintiff filed his FAC on July 15, 2020, see Doc. No. 8. Thus, more than twenty- 17 ||one days has passed since Plaintiff served the Complaint. As to Rule 15(a)(1)(B), 18 ||Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). 19 Thus, Plaintiff was not entitled to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). As to 20 |/Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff has not indicated that he has received Defendant’s consent to 21 |jamend his pleading. Further, Plaintiff has not sought or received the Court’s leave to 22 |}amend. 23 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES Plaintiff's FAC. See Fuentes v. 24 ||Danros LLC, No. SACV 16-1869-DOC (JCGx), 2016 WL 10988800, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 25 ||Nov. 18, 2016). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Mth ld (lil 27 United States District Judge 28 ||Dated: July 16, 2020