Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLEREADY, INC,

Defendant.

No. 2:23–cv–306–DAD–KJN PS

ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND CALL FOR JOINT 

STATEMENT

This action has been assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Because at 

least one party proceeds without the assistance of counsel, the Local Rules dictate the Magistrate 

Judge will (1) resolve all non-dispositive matters, and (2) conduct all hearings and issue findings 

and recommendations on any dispositive matters. See Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Should the parties wish to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all

purposes, including for the entry of final judgment, they may do so using the court’s “Consent to 

Assignment or Request for Reassignment” form. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Although it is 

encouraged, there is no obligation to consent, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b)(1), 

the judges will not be notified of a party’s choice unless all parties have consented. Because a 

consent designation assists the court in determining how the action will be administratively 

processed, the parties are instructed to make their election and notify the Clerk of the Court

within 30 days of this order.

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/28/23 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

The parties are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any 

settlement or other disposition. See Local Rule 160.

Finally, plaintiff is reminded that while this court liberally construes filings by parties 

who are not represented by counsel, pro se parties are still required to comply with the Federal 

Rules, the court’s Local Rules, and all orders of the court. This includes an obligation to confer 

in good faith with defense counsel on the above matters. Under Local Rule 110, a failure to do so 

“may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within 

the inherent power of the Court,” including monetary sanctions, the striking of a pleading or 

motion, or dismissal of the case.

Regarding the duty to follow the proper procedural rules, the court notes that on March 

22, 2023, plaintiff filed a document entitled “first amended complaint.” This filing, however, 

runs afoul of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that Rule, a plaintiff may 

file an amendment without the court’s permission if it is filed within 21 days of service of his 

original complaint, or within 21 days of any responsive filing by defendant. Here, plaintiff filed 

his original complaint in California Superior Court on January 8, 2023, and defendant filed its 

answer on February 17, 2023. (See ECF No. 1.) Thus, plaintiff needed to file his amended 

complaint (if seeking to do so without the court’s permission) by March 10, 2023. The “first 

amended complaint” shows plaintiff signed it March 19th, and the court received it on March 22nd. 

Because this filing was improper, the court strikes it from the docket.1

Setting aside plaintiff’s “first amended complaint” filing, the court observes that 

defendants have answered the original complaint (see ECF No. 1) and the time for any remand 

motion has expired. Thus, the case requires scheduling. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s filing at ECF No. 5, the “first amended complaint” is STRICKEN. 

1 This is not to say plaintiff cannot file a first amended complaint. To do so, however, he must 

follow Rule 15(a)(2) (requiring consent of the other parties or a court order for amendments). 

Given that the court is ordering the parties to confer over discovery deadlines, plaintiff should 

first attempt to secure defendant’s written consent to the filing of a first amended complaint. If 

defendant does not consent, plaintiff may then file with the court a motion to amend, along with a 

proposed amended complaint.

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/28/23 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

2. Within 30 days of this order, the parties shall discuss, in person or by telephone, their 

obligations to transmit mandatory disclosures to the other parties, as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26. During their meeting, the parties shall discuss whether this 

case should be stayed and referred to mediation in the court’s Voluntary Dispute 

Resolution Program. The parties should also confer on discovery deadlines, and 

defendants should consider whether it is proper for them to provide written consent to 

plaintiff in order for him to amend the complaint.

3. Within 14 days after this conferral, the parties shall file a joint status report with the court 

for the entry of a pretrial scheduling order. This report shall address the relevant portions 

of Local Rule 240(a) including subsections (1), (2), (4), (8), (11), (12), (16), (17), and 

(18); shall include the parties’ statement(s) of the case; shall address the issue of 

plaintiff’s intent to amend the complaint; and may address any other matters the parties 

believe are important for scheduling purposes. 

4. A remote hearing shall take place on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The parties 

will receive instructions from the court on how to appear as the hearing date approaches.

Dated: March 28, 2023

hill.306

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/28/23 Page 3 of 3