Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Topeka

Full title: OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS…

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Feb 23, 2006

Case No. 06-4004-RDR (D. Kan. Feb. 23, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06-4004-RDR.

February 23, 2006

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge

This matter comes before the court upon Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). Plaintiffs commenced their action on January 4, 2006. On February 14, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) and on February 23, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 6).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) states in pertinent part:

A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . [.] Otherwise, a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court before filing their Second Amended Complaint, nor does it appear that plaintiffs obtained the adverse party's permission prior to filing their Second Amended Complaint.

Therefore, the court shall strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) as improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court directs plaintiffs to file a motion in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 should they wish to file a Second Amended Complaint at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.