Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Riley v. Vizcarra, 18cv2911-JAH(BLM). (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190805562 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF Nos. 13, 16] BARBARA L. MAJOR , Magistrate Judge . On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation by filing a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his Due Process and Equal Protection rights, and for retaliation. See ECF No. 1. On June 12, 2019, Def
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF Nos. 13, 16]

On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation by filing a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his Due Process and Equal Protection rights, and for retaliation. See ECF No. 1. On June 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, service of which was mailed or delivered to Plaintiff on or within three days of June 12, 2019. ECF Nos. 13, 13-3. On June 17, 2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14.

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed nunc pro tunc a motion to amend his complaint and on the same day, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. ECF Nos. 16, 17. In Plaintiff's motion to amend, he asserts that Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on or around June 12, 2019, and that Plaintiff is requesting to amend his complaint as a matter of course. ECF No. 16 at 1. Plaintiff further states that he "has met the 21 day mark as stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15[(a)]." Id. at 1. Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff's motion to amend. See Dkt.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff has the right to amend his complaint as a matter of course either: (1) "21 days after serving it, or" (2) "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See also Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[A] plaintiff has the right to amend within twenty-one days of service of the complaint (15(a)(1)(A)), or within twenty-one days of service of a responsive pleading or service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever comes first (15(a)(1)(B)).")

Here, Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), establishing it as a Rule 12(b) motion for purposes of Rule 15(a). See ECF No. 13 at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), 15(a). Because Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on July 1, 2019—nineteen days after Defendants filed and initiated service of their motion to dismiss on Plaintiff—the amended complaint was timely filed "as a matter of course" within the requisite twenty-one (21) day period. See ECF Nos. 13-1, 17; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 13] is DENIED as moot. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's amended complaint [ECF No. 17] on or before August 23, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer