Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NOS. 19, 20] BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ , District Judge . On September 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF No. 9). On October 12, 2017, Defendant City of Chula Vista filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 15). On November 30, 2017, Plaintiffs, without leave of Court, filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (ECF No. 17). The parties are in agreement that the
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NOS. 19, 20] BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ , District Judge . On September 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF No. 9). On October 12, 2017, Defendant City of Chula Vista filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 15). On November 30, 2017, Plaintiffs, without leave of Court, filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (ECF No. 17). The parties are in agreement that the ..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ECF NOS. 19, 20]
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
On September 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF No. 9). On October 12, 2017, Defendant City of Chula Vista filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 15). On November 30, 2017, Plaintiffs, without leave of Court, filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (ECF No. 17). The parties are in agreement that the difference between the FAC and SAC is the removal of two references to "CVPD," which is no longer an active defendant in this action. (See ECF No. 19 at 2; ECF No. 20 at 6). On February 8, 2018, Defendant, the United States, filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiffs have filed responses in opposition to both motions to dismiss and defendants have filed their replies. (ECF Nos. 18, 23, 33, 36).
Because there has been full briefing on Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's FAC, and the difference between Plaintiff's FAC and SAC is immaterial, in furtherance of efficiency, the Court will treat Plaintiff's FAC as the operative pleading.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file its SAC (ECF No. 19). Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's SAC (ECF No. 17). (ECF No. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
