From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindblad v. City of Millbrae

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 16, 2021
21-cv-08608-AGT (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-08608-AGT

12-16-2021

ROBERT LINDBLAD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MILLBRAE, et al., Defendants.


Re: Dkt. No. 5

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge

Robert Lindblad's proposed amended complaint doesn't comply with Civil Local Rule 10-1, which requires any party who moves to file an amended pleading to “reproduce the entire proposed pleading and . . . not [to] incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference.”

Lindblad's proposed amended complaint doesn't satisfy this rule, because it simply includes a caption page that identifies several new defendants, without including any of the factual allegations or legal claims that appear in the original complaint. As Rule 10-1 makes clear, Lindblad cannot incorporate those allegations and claims by reference.

The motion to amend is denied for failure to comply with Rule 10-1. Having denied the motion, the Court will continue to treat the original complaint as the operative pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1


Summaries of

Lindblad v. City of Millbrae

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 16, 2021
21-cv-08608-AGT (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Lindblad v. City of Millbrae

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LINDBLAD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MILLBRAE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 16, 2021

Citations

21-cv-08608-AGT (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021)