BRANDON v. KENNER SELF STORAGE, LLC, 13-818. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20130812631
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2013
Summary: ORDER LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff, Alfred E. Brandon, Jr., has filed a motion 1 to amend his complaint. Defendants oppose the motion, but they cite cases premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which applies to plaintiffs who seek leave to amend their complaints after the time period described in Rule 15(a)(1) has passed. 2 Plaintiff's motion to amend is presumably filed pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) because the time period for that subsection had not expire
Summary: ORDER LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff, Alfred E. Brandon, Jr., has filed a motion 1 to amend his complaint. Defendants oppose the motion, but they cite cases premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which applies to plaintiffs who seek leave to amend their complaints after the time period described in Rule 15(a)(1) has passed. 2 Plaintiff's motion to amend is presumably filed pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) because the time period for that subsection had not expired..
More
ORDER
LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff, Alfred E. Brandon, Jr., has filed a motion1 to amend his complaint. Defendants oppose the motion, but they cite cases premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which applies to plaintiffs who seek leave to amend their complaints after the time period described in Rule 15(a)(1) has passed.2 Plaintiff's motion to amend is presumably filed pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) because the time period for that subsection had not expired when he filed his motion.3 See Wright, Miller & Kane, 6 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1482 (3d ed.) ("[I]n most cases, a party who makes a motion to amend before the period for amendment as of course has expired does so inadvertently and treating the amendment as if it had been made under Rule 15(a)(1) avoids penalizing the pleader for not understanding the rule."). Rule 15(a)(1) provides for amendment "as a matter of course" and it does not require leave of Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDRED that the pending motions4 to dismiss are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to defendants' right to re-urge their motions relative to plaintiff's amended complaint.
FootNotes
1. R. Doc. No. 26.
2. E.g., R. Doc. No. 20, at 3.
3. Rule 15(a)(1)(B) permits amendment "as a matter of course . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier." Plaintiff filed his motion to amend on July 2, 2013, exactly 21 days after the first Rule 12(b) motion was filed. See R. Doc. No. 13; R. Doc. No. 16.
4. R. Doc. No. 13; R. Doc. No. 14.
Source: Leagle
