Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01624/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01624-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU, et

al., 

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1624-W(NLS)

ORDER:

(1) STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO

DISMISS [DOCS. 4, 8]

v.

ADAM SHACKNAI, et al., 

Defendants.

On July 12, 2013, Plaintiffs Estate of Rebecca Zahau, Estate of Robert Zahau,

Mary Zahau-Leohner, and Pari Z. Zahau commenced this tort action against

Defendants Adam Shacknai, Dina Shacknai, and Nina Romano. Thereafter, October

10, 2013 and on October 15, 2013, Ms. Romano and Mr. Shacknai respectively filed

motions to dismiss. (Docs. 4, 8.) Both argue that the complaint should be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. To date, Plaintiffs have not 1

opposed either of these motions. Rather, on November 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17.)

//

Subsequently, Ms. Shacknai also filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike prayers for 1

punitive damages. (Doc. 13.) The hearing for that motion is set for December 2, 2013.

- 1 - 13cv1624

Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 18 Filed 11/12/13 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

I. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days

after serving it, or (B) “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,

21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other

cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or

the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Based on the dates Ms. Romano and Mr. Shacknai filed their respective motions

to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint 31 days after Ms. Romano filed her

motion and 26 days after Mr. Shacknai filed his. Consequently, Plaintiffs are no longer

in the time frame where they may file an amended complaint as a matter of course. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Rather, they are now under the scope of Rule 15(a)(2), which

requires Plaintiffs to obtain written consent from the opposing parties or request leave

from the Court to amend their complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not comply with the timeliness requirements of

Rule 15(a), the Court STRIKES it from the docket. (Doc. 17.)

B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that“[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers

in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to

the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has held

that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See

generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming

dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the

motion and ample time to respond).

Here, based on the November 18, 2013 hearing date for both motions, Plaintiffs’

oppositions were due no later than November 4, 2013. However, Plaintiffs did not file

- 2 - 13cv1624

Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 18 Filed 11/12/13 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

any opposition and have not requested additional time to do so. Moreover, there is no

evidence before the Court that Defendants’ moving papers failed to reach the mailing

address designated in Defendants’ Proofs of Service or that Plaintiffs were not aware of

the pending motions. Therefore, relying on Civil LocalRule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems

Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose Defendants’ motions as consent to granting them, and

GRANTS Ms. Romano’s and Mr. Shacknai’s motions. (Docs. 4, 8.)

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby:

(1) STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 17); 

(2) GRANTS Ms. Romano’s and Mr. Shacknai’s motions to dismiss (Docs.

4, 8), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ complaint

in its entirety; and

(3) TERMINATES AS MOOT Ms. Shacknai’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13).

If Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, they must request leave from the

Court or obtain written consent from Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: November 12, 2013

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

- 3 - 13cv1624

Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 18 Filed 11/12/13 Page 3 of 3