Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05919/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05919-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COURTNEY SILVERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05919-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING RULE 12(F) 

MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF 43]

Before the Court is Defendants Move Inc. and National Association of Realtors’s motion 

to strike Plaintiff Courtney Silverman’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(f) (“Rule”). ECF 43. On December 10, 2018, Defendant Move Inc. filed a 

motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss and Defendant National Association of Realtors filed 

a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Rules 12(2) 

and 12(6). ECF 25, 27. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff’s deadline to amend her Complaint as a 

matter of right was December 31, 2018. That deadline came and went without amendment. On 

January 28, 2019, 49 days after Defendants filed their responsive pleadings, Plaintiff filed her 

FAC without receiving Defendants’ or the Court’s consent as required by Rule 15(a)(2). Because 

Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 15’s requirements, her FAC is untimely.

To defend her actions, Plaintiff relies on the Court’s order granting the parties’ “joint 

stipulation to modify the briefing schedule.” See Opp. at 8–9 (citing ECF 31). But as the name 

suggests, and the text therein makes clear, this stipulation cannot reasonably be read as extending 

the deadline to amend as of right under Rule 15. Thus, her deadline was December 31, 2018. 

Because Plaintiff did not receive Defendants’ consent or seek (and receive) leave to amend from 

this Court, she failed to comply with Rule 15. As a result, Defendants properly moved to strike 

Case 5:18-cv-05919-BLF Document 50 Filed 03/06/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the pleading under Rule 12(f) as untimely. See Brown v. Wireless Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 

3105069, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007) (“A court may strike a complaint where a plaintiff has 

failed to comply with Rule 15(a).”); Sutton v. Holz, 2007 WL 3027345, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 

2007). 

For the foregoing reasons, the First Amended Complaint is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05919-BLF Document 50 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 2