Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THAT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE FILED AS OF RIGHT ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 11/9/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAFRONIA DODD-OWENS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

KYPHON, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THAT FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT BE FILED

AS OF RIGHT; (2) DENYING AS

MOOT MOTION TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (3)

DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO

DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

[re: doc. nos. 9, 10 and 20]

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the instant action on June 27, 2006. Defendant filed

motions to dismiss and to strike, which motions were set for hearing on November 17, 2006. On

October 27, 2006, while Defendant’s motions remained pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion for

leave to amend the complaint, accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” A motion to dismiss does

not constitute a responsive pleading within the meaning of Rule 15(a); Plaintiffs thus do not need

leave of court to file their proposed first amended complaint. See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court will direct the

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 27 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THAT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE FILED AS OF RIGHT ETC.

(JFLC2)

Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiffs’ proposed first amended complaint as of right and will deny

as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

Defendant’s motions are directed toward Plaintiffs’ original complaint. The Court

therefore will deny those motions as moot and vacate the hearing date of November 17, 2006. 

Defendant shall respond to the first amended complaint within twenty days of service of this

order.

ORDER

(1) The Clerk of the Court is directed to FILE Plaintiffs’ proposed first amended

complaint, attached as exhibit 1 to docket no. 20;

(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is DENIED AS MOOT;

(3) Defendant’s motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and

(4) Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint within twenty days

after service of this order.

DATED: 11/9/06 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 27 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THAT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE FILED AS OF RIGHT ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Frederick J. Geonetta landglawyers@msn.com,

Harold R. Jones hrj@severson.com, ano@severson.com

Thomas Marc Litton tmlitton@compuserve.com,

Rhonda L. Nelson rln@severson.com,

David W. Sanford dsanford@nydclaw.com, fgilbert@nydclaw.com

Steven Lance Wittels swittels@nydclaw.com, sprasad@nydclaw.com

Shayna Bloom

Angela Corridan

Laura Fentonmiller

Jeremy Heisler

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP

1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Grant Morris

Stefanie Roemer

Janette Wipper

Sanford Wittles & Heisler, LLP

1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 27 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 3