Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00369/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00369-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURA MATTHEWS, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., et al., )

Defendants. )

 ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0369-WS-C

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., )

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

D&M SALES, INC., )

Third-Party Defendant. )

ORDER

On January 31, 2006, plaintiff Laura Matthews filed a pleading styled “Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Class Action Complaint” (doc. 77). Upon sua sponte review of this pleading and the

court file, the Court notes that plaintiff has at no time requested leave of Court to file her Second

Amended Complaint. Under Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., after a responsive pleading has been

served, “a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of

the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. (emphasis

added). Defendant Brookstone Stores, Inc. filed its Answer (doc. 71) on January 6, 2006, and

defendant D&M Sales, Inc. filed an Answer (doc. 60) back on December 12, 2005. As such,

plaintiff is no longer entitled to amend her pleading as of right, pursuant to Rule 15(a). 

However, the court file reflects neither that plaintiff sought leave of Court to file her proposed

Second Amended Complaint, nor that defendants have consented in writing to such amendment. 

As such, in its present posture plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is improper,

impermissible, and violative of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

It is no valid response to suggest, as plaintiff does, that her filing is authorized by

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 78 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Magistrate Judge Cassady’s Order (doc. 56) dated December 5, 2005, wherein he set a deadline

of January 31, 2006 for plaintiff to amend her pleadings. Judge Cassady’s Order did not purport

to grant her leave to file an amended pleading for Rule 15(a) purposes, but was instead in the

nature of a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. Rule 15(a) and the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order

impose distinct, cumulative obligations on federal litigants, and compliance with one does not

and cannot excuse noncompliance with the other.

In light of this procedural defect, plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (doc. 77) is

hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply with Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 78 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2