Opinion
3:22-CV-00280-ART-CLB
02-23-2023
MICHAEL GLASS, Plaintiff, v. FEATHERLY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [ECF NO. 17]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Glass's (“Glass”) amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court strikes the amended complaint and directs Glass to file a motion for leave to amend.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Finally, LR 7-2(d) states the failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of a motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.
Here, Glass filed his proposed amended complaint without leave and without an accompanying motion or points and authorities in support of his proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will strike Glass's amended complaint, (ECF No. 17), for his failure to follow Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, LR 15-1, and LR 7-2(d).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Glass's proposed amended complaint, (ECF No. 17), is STRICKEN.