Pontier v. GEICO Insurance
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Malcolm F. Marsh (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint after the case was transferred from the District of Nevada. The court granted the motion, directing Plaintiff to file a complete amended complaint against all defendants by April 1, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint“Therefore, because it does not appear that Plaintiff intended to bring an amended complaint solely against Geico, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that is complete by itself.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent requiring an amended complaint to be complete on its face. Given that the defendants did not oppose the motion to amend and the plaintiff's previous attempt was incomplete (omitting other defendants), granting leave to file a proper, complete amended complaint is a standard and appropriate procedural remedy. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the issue with the plaintiff's previous filing (incompleteness) and cites the correct local rule and binding circuit authority to justify the requirement for a complete amended complaint. The decision to grant leave is supported by the lack of opposition from the defendants.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PONTIER, Case No.: 21cv0199-GPC(DEB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 GEICO INSURANCE, MARYLAND CORPORATION; FARMERS INC., 15 CORPORATION; JP MORGAN CHASE 16 BANK, N.A., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; JOSEPH DANG, AN 17 INDIVIDUAL, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint against Defendant 21 GEICO which the Court rejected. (Dkt. No. 38.) 22 The original complaint was filed in the District of Nevada on August 5, 2020. 23 (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 16, 2020, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase 24 Bank”) filed a motion to dismiss, or to transfer venue. (Dkt. No. 7.) On November 19, 25 2020, Defendant Geico Insurance (“Geico”) filed its motion to dismiss, or in the 26 alternative, to transfer the case to the Southern District of California. (Dkt. No. 9.) 27 Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the 28 1 || motions to dismiss, a motion to stay proceedings, and a motion to amend the complaint 2 (Dkt. Nos. 13, 15, 16, 19.) Defendants Geico and Chase Bank filed non-oppositions to 3 || these motions on December 9, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21.) 4 On February 1, 2021, the case was transferred to this district based on the 5 || counterdefendant Joseph Dang’s motion to enjoin prosecution of later filed case by the 6 || undersigned judge in the related case number 19cv1519. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.) Therefore, 7 || the district court in Nevada never ruled on Defendants Chase Bank and Geico’s motions 8 || to dismiss nor Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file an opposition, motion to 9 || stay and motion to amend the complaint. 10 Once the case was transferred, Defendants Geico and Chase Bank appear to have 11 |/refiled their motions to dismiss on February 5, 2021 and February 22, 2021, respectively. 12 || (Dkt. No. 30, 36.) Because Defendants Geico and Chase Bank did not oppose □□□□□□□□□□ □ 13 || motion to amend the complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to 14 || file an amended complaint at this time. 15 While Plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint, he did so only as to 16 || Defendant Geico and not the other named defendants. An amended complaint must be 17 ||complete by itself without reference to either of his previous pleadings and Defendants 18 named and any claim not re-alleged in his amended complaint will be considered 19 || waived. See S.D. Local Civ. R. 15.1; Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 20 || Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in 21 ||an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). Therefore, because it 22 || does not appear that Plaintiff intended to bring an amended complaint solely against 23 || Geico, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that is complete 24 || by itself. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint on or before April 1, 2021. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 16, 2021 <= 28 United States District Judge