From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rugamba v. Rungena

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
Aug 9, 2005
Cause No. 3:05-CV-375 RM (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2005)

Opinion

Cause No. 3:05-CV-375 RM.

August 9, 2005


OPINION AND ORDER


The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2005 before this case was transferred from the Northern District of Illinois. They challenge the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff's attorney was not licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois when he filed the complaint on August 10, 2004. The defendants also note that neither the plaintiff nor his attorney ever signed the complaint — a violation of FED. R. CIV. P. 11. This court entered an order on July 14, 2005 affording the plaintiff ten days to file an amended complaint that complied with Rule 11. Twenty-five days later the plaintiff has filed nothing in response to that order.

Rule 11 requires that every pleading be signed by an attorney or by the party if that party is not represented by counsel. "An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party." FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a). Striking a complaint has the practical effect of ending the lawsuit because it is the pleading on which the entire litigation is premised.

Accordingly, the court STRIKES the plaintiff's improperly filed complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss [docket no. 2] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Summaries of

Rugamba v. Rungena

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
Aug 9, 2005
Cause No. 3:05-CV-375 RM (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2005)
Case details for

Rugamba v. Rungena

Case Details

Full title:THIERRY RUGAMBA, as father and next friend of Deimitry Sezibara, a minor…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Aug 9, 2005

Citations

Cause No. 3:05-CV-375 RM (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2005)