Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Third Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiff after the court had granted an extension to the scheduling order deadline but had not granted leave to amend the pleadings. The court ordered the Third Amended Complaint stricken and noted that the deadline to file a proper motion to amend remained May 17, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Striking of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint“Because the Court did not grant leave to amend the pleadings under Rule 15, the Court strikes plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff filed an amended complaint rather than a motion for leave to amend. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave is required to amend after the scheduling order deadline. The court had previously extended the deadline to move for leave (Rule 16(b)) but explicitly reserved the Rule 15 analysis. Therefore, the filing was procedurally improper, and striking it is the appropriate remedy to preserve the court's ability to rule on a proper motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly distinguishes between extending the deadline to move for leave to amend (Rule 16(b)) and granting leave to amend (Rule 15). It accurately applies the two-step analysis required by Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson) and notes that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second step by filing the complaint directly instead of moving for leave. The reasoning is concise and legally sound.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 John Henry YABLONSKY, Case No.: 18-cv-1122-AGS 4 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 v. (ECF 118) 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 7 CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 8 et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On March 22, 2021, plaintiff Yablonsky moved for leave to “extend the deadline for 12 amending [the pleadings].” (ECF 109, at 1.) The Court granted the request. (ECF 116, at 2.) 13 But instead of moving to amend, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF 118.) 14 Yablonsky’s filing was improper. In the April 19, 2021 order, the Court granted 15 plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). (ECF 116, 16 at 2.) But Yablonsky did not request—and the Court did not grant—leave to amend the 17 pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party may amend 18 its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”); see also 19 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] party 20 seeking to amend pleading after [the] date specified in [the] scheduling order must first 21 show ‘good cause’ for amendment under Rule 16(b)[;] then, if ‘good cause’ be shown, the 22 party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15.”). Here, the Court left 23 the Rule 15 prejudice analysis “for any future motion to amend” and specifically “[took] 24 no position at [the] time on whether any . . . reason justifies granting leave to amend here.” 25 (ECF 116, at 2; id. at 2 n.1); see also Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 26 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (setting forth factors 27 to consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend). 28 1 Because the Court did not grant leave to amend the pleadings under Rule 15, the 2 Court strikes plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. The deadline for plaintiff to file any 3 motion to amend is still May 17, 2021. 4 || Dated: April 28, 2021 6 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler , United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28