Christian v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 2:18-cv-13682. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190402c88
Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DE 26) AND ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE 27) AS THE OPERATIVE PLEADING ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's March 27, 2019 motion to file first amended complaint (DE 26), and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (DE 27). The March 8, 2019 Scheduling Order in this case provided for amendment of the pleadings, including joinder of parties, without
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DE 26) AND ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE 27) AS THE OPERATIVE PLEADING ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's March 27, 2019 motion to file first amended complaint (DE 26), and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (DE 27). The March 8, 2019 Scheduling Order in this case provided for amendment of the pleadings, including joinder of parties, without ..
More
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DE 26) AND ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE 27) AS THE OPERATIVE PLEADING
ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's March 27, 2019 motion to file first amended complaint (DE 26), and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (DE 27). The March 8, 2019 Scheduling Order in this case provided for amendment of the pleadings, including joinder of parties, without leave of court, by April 12, 2019. (DE 24.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (DE 27) was filed on March 27, 2019, well before the April 12, 2019 deadline in the scheduling order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend (DE 26) is DENIED AS MOOT because the Court had already granted the relief sought in its prior scheduling order and thus it was not necessary for Plaintiff to file such a motion seeking leave. Further, the Court accepts Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (DE 27) as the operative pleading in this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that no motion was necessary in this instance, Plaintiff is nevertheless cautioned that before filing future motions she must comply with Local Rule 7.1(a), which, among other things, requires her to seek concurrence from opposing counsel prior to filing motions and to so certify to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
