Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEIBORG, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Amend Complaint" Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion. I. Background On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amend Complaint," the substance of which was to "enter new evidence" that Plaintiff had complied with the commands of the Show Low Police Department officers during his arrest. (Doc. 58 at 1). Plaintiff offered as new evidence the "car ca
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEIBORG, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Amend Complaint" Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion. I. Background On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amend Complaint," the substance of which was to "enter new evidence" that Plaintiff had complied with the commands of the Show Low Police Department officers during his arrest. (Doc. 58 at 1). Plaintiff offered as new evidence the "car cam..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEIBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Amend Complaint" Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on the motion.
I. Background
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amend Complaint," the substance of which was to "enter new evidence" that Plaintiff had complied with the commands of the Show Low Police Department officers during his arrest. (Doc. 58 at 1). Plaintiff offered as new evidence the "car cam" video documenting Plaintiff's arrest as well as a "trial video" and a police report. (Id.)
Defendants now move to strike Plaintiff's filing on the basis that it is an amended complaint filed in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. (Doc. 63 at 1-2).
II. Analysis
Although Defendants analyze the timeliness and propriety of Plaintiff's filing under the standards for an amended complaint, (id. at 1-3), the Court construes the filing as a miscellaneous notice and not as an amended complaint. "There is no controlling magic in the title, name, or description which a party litigant gives to his pleading. The substance rather than the name or denomination given to a pleading is the yardstick for determining its character and sufficiency." Rubenstein v. United States, 227 F.2d 638, 642 (10th Cir. 1955); see also Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Lamb, 2003 ND 158, ¶ 7, 670 N.W.2d 351 (2003) (". . . we will consider the motion's substance rather than its title to determine the proper nature of the pleading."); Boise Cascade Corp. v. State ex rel. Oregon State Bd. of Forestry, 991 P.2d 563, 571 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Because the substance of Plaintiff's July 1 filing is clearly to provide notice of certain items of evidence, the Court will not construe it as an amended complaint and Defendants need not file an answer.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Amend Complaint" Filed July 1, 2014 (Doc. 63).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall not file an answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff's July 1, 2014 "Amend Complaint" (Doc. 58), which the Court deems not to be an amended complaint.
