Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a plaintiff's late-filed 'Supplement' and a motion to seal it. The court struck the Supplement as an improper attempt to amend the complaint or supplement closed briefing, and denied the motion to seal as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Supplement (ECF No. 50) is stricken.“Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Supplement (ECF No. 50)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the document functioned as an unauthorized amendment to the complaint (violating Rule 15(a)(2)) or an untimely supplement to closed briefing. Striking such filings is within the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce procedural rules. |
Plaintiff's Motion to File ECF No. 50 Under Seal (ECF No. 51) is denied as moot.“and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 51).” | agree with court Because the underlying document (ECF No. 50) was stricken from the record, there is no longer a filing to seal. Denying the motion as moot is the procedurally correct disposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies Rule 15(a)(2) to prevent unauthorized amendments and relies on persuasive district court authority to support the sua sponte power to strike non-compliant filings. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural defects of the filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, 12 ORDER (1) STRIKING ECF NO. 50, Plaintiff, 13 AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE 14 ECF NO. 50 UNDER SEAL HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 15 a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS (ECF Nos. 50, 51) 16 HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Dr. Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Supplement for 20 1. Unfair Competition 2. Unpaid Wages (“Supp.,” ECF No. 50) and Motion to Put 21 Dkt[ ]Entry 50 Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 51). Plaintiff’s Supplement purports to 22 provide “exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants conspired with 23 Hernandez and Ottawa.” Supp. at 1 (footnote omitted). To the extent Plaintiff attempts to 24 amend her operative SecondAmended Complaint (ECF No. 13) through the Supplement, 25 that attempt is improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party may amend its pleading 26 only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”); see also ECF No. 27 49. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to supplement her opposition to Defendants’ pending 28 motions (ECF Nos. 29, 33), briefing has closed and those matters have been taken under 1 ||submission. See ECF No. 40. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Supplement 2 (ECF No. 50) and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 51). See, e.g., 3 || Whitsitt v. Indus. Employer Distrib. Ass’n, No. C 13-00396 SBA, 2014 WL 67900028, at 4 ||*6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014) (“[I]t is well settled that a court may sua sponte strike a brief 5 || that has not [been] filed consistent with the Court’s procedural rules.”) (collecting cases); 6 || Prince v. Fremont Police Dept., No. C 13-1366 SBA, 2013 WL 3157925, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 7 || June 20, 2013) (sua sponte striking amended complaint filed without authorization). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: August 13, 2020 peach Jt, oe waite ll on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28