Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01352/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01352-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN KERR, EDWARD LI, TIM 

BARNARD, and KENNETH CURTIS, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, 

INC., an Illinois corporation, NATIONAL 

MARKETING RESOURCES, LLC, a 

Missouri limited liability company; 

PARADIGM DIRECT LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; PARADIGM 

DIRECT MARKETING, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company; 

RESPONSE NORTH, LLC, a Utah 

limited liability company; and DOES 5-

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF Nos. 96, 97.]

On July 12, 2017, without leave of the Court, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended 

Complaint. (Dkt. No. 96.) Plaintiffs stated that their first two Amended Complaints were 

filed with leave of the Court, and that this is their first attempt to amend as a matter of 

course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Dkt. No. 97.) 

Case 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM Document 98 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM

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

Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend fails. It is correct that “[s]ince 2009, a plaintiff has the 

right to amend within twenty-one days of service of the complaint (15(a)(1)(A)), or 

within twenty-one days of service of a responsive pleading or service of a motion under 

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever comes first (15(a)(1)(B)).” Ramirez v. Cty. of San 

Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). However, the Advisory Committee’s

Note regarding the 2009 amendment of Rule 15 clearly states that “the right to amend 

once as a matter of course terminates 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), 

(e), or (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 advisory committee’s note (emphases added). Moreover, 

“[t]he 21-day periods to amend once as a matter of course after service of a responsive 

pleading or after service of a designated motion are not cumulative. If a responsive 

pleading is served after one of the designated motions is served, for example, there is no 

new 21-day period.” Id. (emphases added).

Here, two motions to dismiss were filed on June 2, 2017, (Dkt. Nos. 81, 84.) 

Another was subsequently filed on June 27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 91.) Although Plaintiffs

filed their proposed Third Amended Complaint within 21 days of the June 27, 2017 

motion to dismiss, over 21 days have elapsed since the first two motion to dismiss were 

filed on June 2, 2017. Plaintiffs’ right to amend once as a matter of course terminated 21 

days after service of the two June 2, 2017 motions to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 

No. 96.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM Document 98 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2