Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CLAUSSEN v. PENCE, 2:15-CV-52-PPS-PRC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana Number: infdco20150610c34 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER PAUL R. CHERRY , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 26], filed on May 15, 2015. No response has been filed, and the time to do so has passed. Two of the plaintiffs in this case (John McDaniel and Donald Huddleston) ask to be dropped from this case as they believe their claims are now moot. While most circuits recognize amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 as an acceptable me
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 26], filed on May 15, 2015. No response has been filed, and the time to do so has passed. Two of the plaintiffs in this case (John McDaniel and Donald Huddleston) ask to be dropped from this case as they believe their claims are now moot.

While most circuits recognize amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 as an acceptable means of adding or dropping parties, see Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases); 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1479 (3d ed.), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a court order under Rule 21 is required "to add or drop parties." Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Grp., Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 1986) (footnotes omitted); see also Rauner v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO, No. 15 C 1235, 2015 WL 2385698, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2015). The Court thus construes this motion as seeking relief under both Rule 15 and Rule 21. The Court finds the matter well taken and thus GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 26], DROPS Plaintiffs McDaniel and Huddleston, and ORDERS the remaining Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint no later than June 12, 2015.

Moreover, it now appears that the Court improvidently denied Plaintiffs' first Motion to Amend Complaint [DE 14] insofar as a court order was needed in order for Plaintiffs to swap Defendants. No party has objected to that amendment, however, and the Court, pursuant to Rule 21 now ORDERS that the two original Defendants (the State of Indiana and the Indiana State Board of Accounts) are DROPPED and that the new Defendants (Michael R. Pence, Paul Joyce, Mike Bozymski, and Tammy White) are ADDED to this case. This substitution applies retroactively to April 22, 2015.

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