Skonieczny v. Borough of Baden

Full title: PATRICIA SKONIECZNY, JAMES SKONIECZNY, NICOLETTE SKONIECZNY, BRENDA…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Civil Action No. 08-1312 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-1312.

February 2, 2010

ORDER

JOY CONTI, District Judge

AND NOW, this 2^nd day of February, 2010, upon review of plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint (the "Motion") (Docket No. 68), the court finds the Motion lacks sufficient clarity for the court to assess each claim being added, with respect to: 1) which defendants that claim is brought against, 2) the elements of that claim, and 3) the factual allegations supporting those elements. This court on November 18, 2009 denied plaintiffs' prior motion to amend their complaint without prejudice and advised plaintiffs that any renewed motion must contain the detailed information noted in the previous sentence.

If plaintiffs wish to have a motion to amend considered by the court, plaintiffs must file a motion that specifies with clarity each claim being added, which defendants that claim is brought against, the elements of that claim, and the factual allegations in the proposed amended complaint which support that claim. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in any subsequent motion to amend the complaint being denied with prejudice.

It is ORDERED and DECREED that plaintiffs' Motion (Docket No. 68) is DENIED without prejudice.