Opinion
30-cv-01304-BAS-LL
10-28-2021
VETERANS RIDESHARE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER (ECF No. 27)
Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion seeking leave for Defendants to file a First Amended Answer to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“Joint Motion”). (Mot., ECF No. 27.) In support thereof, the parties submit the declaration of Olivia J. Miner, Esq., and purport to attach thereto as Exhibit A “a copy of their proposed First Amended Answer . . . with redlines that show the changes from the operative answer” (“Redline”) and as Exhibit B a clean copy of their proposed First Amended Answer (“Clean Copy”). (Miner Decl. ¶ 1-2, ECF No. 27-1.) However, neither the Redline nor the Clean Copy shows, “through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographical methods[, ] . . . how the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading, ” as required under Local Civil Rule 15.1(b). On their face, the Exhibits are indistinguishable. Because the parties' filings fail to enable the Court to discern the differences between the operative and amended pleadings, the Court DENIES the parties' Motion for noncompliance with the Local Civil Rules. See Ervin v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 14-CV-1142-WQH-BGS, 2015 WL 641244 at *2 (Feb. 13, 2015 S.D. Cal.) (denying motion for leave to amend for failure to comply with L.R. 15.1(b)).
Ms. Miner represents Defendants in this action.
All exhibits are attached to the Miner Declaration at ECF No. 27-1.
The Court's denial is without prejudice to a renewed Motion. However, the parties must append a properly demarcated amended pleading, consistent with Local Civil Rule 15.1(b), in any renewed application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.