Filed: Oct. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on review of the file. Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP initiated this action on August 25, 2014, by filing an original complaint against Defendant Brian David Firestone. ( Doc. #1 ). Thereafter, the Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice because federal jurisdiction was not properly alleged within the original complaint. ( Doc. #3 ). The Court gave First Mutual Group a September
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on review of the file. Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP initiated this action on August 25, 2014, by filing an original complaint against Defendant Brian David Firestone. ( Doc. #1 ). Thereafter, the Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice because federal jurisdiction was not properly alleged within the original complaint. ( Doc. #3 ). The Court gave First Mutual Group a September ..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on review of the file. Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP initiated this action on August 25, 2014, by filing an original complaint against Defendant Brian David Firestone. (Doc. #1). Thereafter, the Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice because federal jurisdiction was not properly alleged within the original complaint. (Doc. #3). The Court gave First Mutual Group a September 11, 2014, deadline to file an amended complaint that properly alleges federal jurisdiction. (Doc. #3). Thereafter, First Mutual Group filed two amended complaints before September 11, 2014. (Doc. #5; Doc. #6). The latter amended complaint, (Doc. #6), properly alleges federal jurisdiction.
Then, without consent from Firestone2 or leave from the Court, on October 17, 2014, First Mutual Group filed two more amended complaints. (Doc. #12; Doc. #13). This is problematic because pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) a party may amend its pleading only once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading is required, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), "[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). Here, First Mutual Group has not served a complaint, at least no service is reflected on the docket, and no responsive pleading is required at this time. Thus, in this situation any new amended complaint filed on the docket should comply with Rule 15(a)(2). But here, First Mutual Group did not have consent from Firestone or leave from the Court to file its two additional amended complaints on October 17, 2014. Rather than striking the latest complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint, (Doc. #13), the Court will remind First Mutual Group of Rule 15 and deem the Fourth Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in this action.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP is hereby warned that all future amended complaints filed in this action must comply with Rule 15, otherwise the Court may strike the additional complaint without notice or impose other sanctions. First Mutual Group is directed to comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Middle District of Florida Local Rules going forward in this proceeding.
DONE and ORDERED.
