Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01091/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01091-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 29, 2016, Plaintiffs Savanah St. Clair and Andy St. Clair filed a first amended 

complaint (Doc. 34) and an ex parte application for leave to file the amended complaint (Doc. 35). 

Plaintiffs assert they “discussed a stipulation to allow the filing of this amended complaint” with 

Defendants, who “were unable to stipulate, because additional parties were identified as DOES, and 

were added as Defendants.” (Doc. 35)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 

21 days of service, or if the pleading is one to which a response is required, 21 days after service of a 

motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). “In 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). Because Defendants

do not consent to the filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must seek the leave of the Court.

Significantly, however, the proper procedure for seeking leave to amend is by a written motion 

pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Butler v. Robar Enterprises, Inc., 

SAVANAH ST. CLAIR, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01091 - LJO - JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STRIKING THE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Docs. 34, 35)

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 36 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

208 F.R.D. 621, 622 (C.D.Cal.2002) (explaining the requirements of Rule 15 must be satisfied to 

name a “Doe” defendant). Indeed, the Court informed previously the parties that any pleading 

amendments were to be made “either through a stipulation or motion to amend.” (Doc. 32 at 3, 

emphasis added) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for leave to file an amended complaint 

is procedurally defective.

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 34) is STRICKEN; and

2. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 35) is 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 36 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2