From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schneider v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 10, 2013
2:12-cv-2457 KJM JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2013)

Opinion


JAY L. SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2457 KJM JFM United States District Court, E.D. California. July 10, 2013

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         On September 27, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint raising two civil rights claims against the County of Sacramento, Roger Dickinson, Robert Sherry, Jeff Gamel, Cindy Storelli, Leighann Moffitt, Tammy Derby, Carl Simpson, and David Bieber. ECF No. 1.

         On May 20, 2013, defendants County of Sacramento, Derby, Dickinson, Moffitt, Sherry, Simpson, and Storelli answered the complaint. ECF Nos. 28-35.

         On June 5, 2013, defendant Bieber filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 37.

         On June 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and on June 28, 2013, filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 39, 40. In their opposition, plaintiffs say they filed the First Amended Complaint to clarify their allegations against defendant Bieber. ECF No. 40.

         Under Rule 15(a)(1), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of serving it or "if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier." After that window has closed, a party must seek a stipulation from the opposing parties or leave of court to amend. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(2). Under the rule, the twenty-one day period to amend as a matter of course begins on the date of the earliest defense action. Trujillo v. City of Newton, No. 12-2380-JAR-DJW, 2013 WL 535747, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2013); Brown v. West Valley Envtl. Serv. LLC., No. 10CV210A, 2010 WL 3369604, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010). In this case, the earliest defense action was the answers filed by defendants County of Sacramento, Dickinson, Sherry, Gamel, Storelli, Moffitt, Derby, and Simpson. In this case, plaintiffs could file an amended complaint without seeking leave of court no later than June 11, 2013. The First Amended Complaint, filed June 26, 2013, is hereby stricken.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Schneider v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 10, 2013
2:12-cv-2457 KJM JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2013)
Case details for

Schneider v. County of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:JAY L. SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 10, 2013

Citations

2:12-cv-2457 KJM JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2013)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Black Entm't Television, Inc.

Rather, "the twenty-one day period to amend as a matter of course begins on the date of the earliest defense…