Kuhlman v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 2:18-cv-02206-JCM-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190104b54
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 16, 19] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants. Docket No. 16. The motion is defective on numerous grounds. First, Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint. See Local Rule 15-1(a). Second, the motion consists of less than two pages of argument and is not sufficiently developed to enable judicial review. See Kor Media Grp, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 16, 19] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants. Docket No. 16. The motion is defective on numerous grounds. First, Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint. See Local Rule 15-1(a). Second, the motion consists of less than two pages of argument and is not sufficiently developed to enable judicial review. See Kor Media Grp, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev...
More
Order
[Docket Nos. 16, 19]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants. Docket No. 16. The motion is defective on numerous grounds. First, Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint. See Local Rule 15-1(a). Second, the motion consists of less than two pages of argument and is not sufficiently developed to enable judicial review. See Kor Media Grp, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Third, and relatedly, the motion relies exclusively on Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but fails to explain why the motion is not actually governed by the more restrictive standards of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) that apply to attempts to add new defendants after removal to destroy diversity jurisdiction, see, e.g., Bonner v. Fuji Photo Film, 461 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
Accordingly, the motion to amend the complaint is DENIED without prejudice.
In light of the above, the stipulation to extend the deadline to file a reply (Docket No. 19) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
