ORDER

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Before the court are Defendants Comprehensive Health Management Inc., WellCare Health Plans, Inc., Tom Potts, Frank Webster, Lydia Ophaug, Ray McComb, and Kaleista Lagarde's (collectively, "Moving Defendants") partial motion to dismiss and strike Plaintiff Linda Vopnford's second amended complaint (MTD (Dkt. #47)) and Ms. Vopnford's motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint (MTA (Dkt. #49)). The court GRANTS Ms. Vopnford's motion for leave to amend and DENIES as moot Moving Defendants' partial motion to dismiss.

On August 8, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the first partial motion to dismiss filed by various Moving Defendants. (8/8/17 Order (Dkt. #33).) In its order, the court struck various paragraphs of the amended complaint, dismissed several defendants, dismissed various claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed other claims for failure to state a claim. (See generally id.) The court granted Ms. Vopnford leave to amend some of these claims with the instruction that the amended complaint must "remedy the pleading deficiencies identified" by the order. (Id. at 28; see id. at 27-28.)

On August 21, 2017, Ms. Vopnford filed her second amended complaint, (SAC (Dkt. #40).) But the second amended complaint did not comply with the court's order. The complaint retained the paragraphs that the court previously struck (see SAC ¶¶ 3.2-3.31), alleged charges against defendants that the court had already dismissed (see id. ¶¶ 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9. 2.10), and left untouched various claims that the court had identified as failing to state a claim (see id. ¶¶ 5.24-28, 5.21-23). In response, Moving Defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and strike. (See generally MTD.)

Ms. Vopnford responded that she "does not oppose editing the Second Amended Complaint to reflect the Court's August 8, 2017, Order," although she does not explain why the second amended complaint did not adhere to the court's order in the first instance. (Resp. (Dkt. #48) at 2.) She subsequently filed a motion to amend with a proposed third amended complaint attached. (See generally MTA.) But this third amended complaint again fails to fully comply with the court's order. As Moving Defendants point out, the third amended complaint fails to remove paragraph 3.31, as the court instructed. (MTD Reply (Dkt. #50) at 3.) Ms. Vopnford acknowledges that "[p]aragraph 3.31 was inadvertently left in the Proposed Third Amended Complaint" and attached a "corrected Proposed Third Amended Complaint." (MTA Reply (Dkt. #51) at 2.) The Moving Defendants acknowledge that the corrected third amended complaint moots their motion to dismiss and further indicates that they intend to file an answer if the court accepts the corrected third amended complaint. (See MTD Reply at 3.)

The court recognizes that Ms. Vopnford has now amended her complaint to reflect the court's August 8, 2017, order, and thus will accept the corrected third amended complaint so that this action may proceed. However, the court cautions Ms. Vopnford that it will not tolerate any future deviation from the court's orders or ignorance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Western District of Washington, and all other applicable rules. The court GRANTS Ms. Vopnford's motion for leave to amend (Dkt. #49) and authorizes her to file the corrected third amended complaint in the form attached as Exhibit A (Dkt. #51, Ex. A) within seven (7) days of the entry of this order. The court further DISMISSES Moving Defendants' partial motion to dismiss as moot (Dkt. #47).