Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02389-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

Case No. 15-cv-02389 NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANFORD HEALTH CARE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-02389 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 40

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Miller filed a first amended complaint on 

January 11, 2016, without requesting leave from the Court or consent from the defendants 

to do so. Dkt. No. 40.

Rule 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter 

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . Otherwise a party may 

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse 

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Under this rule, Miller could amend her complaint only by leave of court or by written 

consent, because a responsive pleading was served on July 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 20.

Moreover, under Rule 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 

and with the judge’s consent.” This Court’s order at docket 35 set a scheduling order that 

required pleadings to be amended by November 2, 2015. Further, the Court dismissed 

some of the defendants from the case in its order at docket 21. Miller has failed to show 

Case 5:15-cv-02389-NC Document 41 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 15-cv-02389 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

good cause why the Court’s previous scheduling order should be modified, or why she has 

included defendants that the Court has dismissed from the case.

Here, Miller did not file a stipulation or motion for leave to file her first amended 

complaint, and the document “therefore has no legal effect.” Ritzer v. Gerovicap Pharm. 

Corp., 162 F.R.D. 642, 644 (D. Nev. 1995); Hoover v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 855 F.2d 

1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff improperly filed amended complaint so amended

complaint had no legal effect).

Therefore, Miller is ordered to show cause by January 20, 2016, why the Court 

should permit her first amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02389-NC Document 41 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2