Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00953/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00953-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: Jones Act, Personal Injury High Sea

---

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 - 07cv0953

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV0953-LAB (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

vs.

PERRY & SHAW, INC.,

Defendant.

On May 23, Plaintiff filed his complaint. On June 18, 2007, he filed his amended

complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Plaintiff then attempted, without leave of the Court,

to file a second amended complaint, which was rejected by discrepancy order signed on July

12, 2007 and entered on July 16, 2007. 

On July 18, 2007, Plaintiff moved ex parte to file a second amended complaint.

Specifically, he wishes to add Defendants and drop Duke Energy Corporation as a

Defendant. Plaintiff has, however, identified his second amended complaint as “dated June

25, 2007,” perhaps as a request to have the second amended complaint filed nunc pro tunc

to the date he first attempted to file it.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED LEAVE to file a

second amended complaint adding and dropping Defendants as specified in his ex parte

motion filed July 18, 2007. The second amended complaint shall not, however, be filed nunc

pro tunc.

Case 3:07-cv-00953-LAB-WMC Document 9 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv0953

Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate some uncertainty about electronic filing procedures and

other procedural rules. For example, on June 18, 2007, an issue of non-compliance with

Local Rule 5.4(a) regarding mandatory electronic filing was issued. Plaintiff’s ex parte

motion is submitted without line numbering, in violation of Civil Local Rule 5.1(a). Rather

than seeking leave of chambers to submit a proposed order, Plaintiff electronically filed a

proposed order as part of his ex parte motion, in violation of § 2(h) of the Electronic Case

Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, adopted as of September 5, 2006 by

General Order 550 and amended effective July 16, 2007 (“Registered users SHOULD NOT

FILE OR SUBMIT proposed orders within the electronic filing system.”) Plaintiff also

submitted via email a copy of his proposed order in .pdf format, in violation of the same

section. (“The proposed order must be in editable word processing format (i.e. WordPerfect

or Microsoft Word) and not in .pdf format.”)

While the Court does not consider these errors individually to be especially serious,

they do cause procedural snarls and their frequency raises some concern regarding the

orderly and efficient disposition of this case. Plaintiff’s counsel is therefore directed to review

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, the Court’s standing order, and

the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.

The Clerk is directed to strike the proposed order attached to Plaintiff’s ex parte

motion filed July 18, 2007 from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Case 3:07-cv-00953-LAB-WMC Document 9 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2