Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER STRIKING DOCKET NO. 42 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. District Judge . On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff Carol Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff attached to that motion a copy of her proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 33-1. Because Defendant City College of San Francisco ("Defendant") did not oppose the motion and because the Court did not find that there was any improper purpose, the Court granted Plain
Summary: ORDER STRIKING DOCKET NO. 42 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. District Judge . On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff Carol Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff attached to that motion a copy of her proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 33-1. Because Defendant City College of San Francisco ("Defendant") did not oppose the motion and because the Court did not find that there was any improper purpose, the Court granted Plaint..
More
ORDER STRIKING DOCKET NO. 42
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. District Judge.
On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff Carol Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in this matter. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff attached to that motion a copy of her proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 33-1. Because Defendant City College of San Francisco ("Defendant") did not oppose the motion and because the Court did not find that there was any improper purpose, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion on July 14, 2016. Dkt. No. 35.
On July 27, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 37. In response, the Court vacated the pending case management conference. Dkt. No. 39. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 41.
On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint as a separate entry on the docket. Dkt. No. 42. This complaint does not match the proposed complaint that the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file in its previous order. Compare Dkt. No. 42 with Dkt. No. 33-1. Plaintiff essentially admits that the two complaints do not match: she captions the latter document as a "Formal Amended Second Complaint." Dkt. No. 42 at 1.
Plaintiff may not file a different complaint than the one she submitted and the Court approved without obtaining further approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Permitting Plaintiff to file a different second amended complaint would prejudice Defendant because it has already filed a motion to dismiss based on the proposed complaint that Plaintiff filed in May. It would also waste judicial and private resources to require the motion to dismiss to be re-briefed.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the second amended complaint filed as Docket No. 42 from the docket. The operative complaint is the proposed amended complaint that Plaintiff filed as Docket No. 33-1. The clerk is directed to e-file the proposed amended complaint as the second amended complaint. The Court will not permit any further amendment of the complaint pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
