Opinion
1:22-cv-00668-ADA-CDB
01-23-2023
MATTHEW ALAN HEARN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER
(DOC. 22)
FIVE-DAY DEADLINE
On June 2, 2022, Defendants City of Bakersfield and individual City defendants removed this action filed in Kern County Superior Court by Plaintiff Matthew Alan Hearn (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 1). Defendants County of Kern, T.R. Marickel and S. Jauch filed answers to Plaintiff's complaint on August 25, 2022. (Doc. 10). No other Defendants answered.
On December 7, 2022, the Court noted Plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 14) did not include T.R. Marickel as a named Defendant and directed the Clerk of Court to update the docket and terminate T.R. Marickel. (Doc. 19).
Several days later, the parties filed a stipulation requesting the Court continue the upcoming scheduling conference based on representations that, following the parties' consultations, Plaintiff was preparing to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 11). Although the Defendants did not expressly manifest in the stipulation their consent to Plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint, the Court inferred from the parties' joint request to continue the scheduling conference that Defendants in fact consented to the anticipated amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 10, 2022 (Doc. 14) to which no party has answered.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), where (as here) a response has been filed to a complaint, the filing of a first amended complaint requires the parties' written consent or leave of Court.
On December 12, 2022, the parties represented in a stipulation to the Court that Plaintiff sought and received consent from Defendants to file a first amended complaint but had not yet filed the stipulation memorializing the consent. (Doc. 20). Thereafter, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a document memorializing Defendants' consent to the first amended complaint as required pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) no later than January 3, 2022. (Doc. 22). To date, Plaintiff has no responded to the Court's order.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order requiring him to file a document memorializing Defendants' consent to the first amended complaint.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in appropriate sanctions of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.