Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02839/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02839-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDY REED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF

THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES,

MOTION PICTURE TECHNICIANS,

ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF THE

UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND

CANADA, LOCAL 16 et al., 

Defendants /

No. C 05-2839 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

STRIKE; VACATING HEARING 

(Docket No. 18)

Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed August 23, 2005, to strike plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint for failure to obtain a stipulation from defendants or leave of court prior

to filing the complaint.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “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.” Id.

 As defendants correctly note, defendant International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
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

Employees (“IATSE”) filed an answer to plaintiff’s initial complaint on July 18, 2005. 

Although the Court struck the answer, without prejudice, on July 29, 2005, due to IATSE’s

failure to provide a chambers copy, IATSE refiled the answer on August 1, 2005. Plaintiff

filed her First Amended Complaint two days later, on August 3, 2005. Thus, as defendants

correctly point out, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint in violation of Rule 15(a),

because IATSE had already answered the original complaint at the time the First Amended

Complaint was filed and plaintiff did not obtain a stipulation of the parties or leave of court

before filing the amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed in lieu of responding to the thenpending motion to dismiss filed by defendants F.X. Crowley and Richard J. Putz. In filing

the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff deleted several causes of action that were

challenged in defendants’ motion to dismiss. As noted, “leave to amend shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Neither the defendants nor the

Court has any interest in precluding plaintiff from streamlining her complaint to delete

extraneous causes of action. Although the Court could strike the amended complaint and

require plaintiff to seek leave to delete the extraneous causes of action, such an order

would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court will deny defendants’ motion to

strike the First Amended Complaint, to the extent defendants challenge plaintiff’s deletion

of various causes of action from the complaint.

The First Amended Complaint also includes, however, a new cause of action for

harassment based on sex and disability, in violation of the California Fair Employment and

Housing Act (“FEHA”), based on newly alleged facts. The Court agrees with defendants

that plaintiff was required to seek leave of court, or consent of defendants, before

amending her complaint to add this new cause of action. As plaintiff failed to do so, the

Court will grant defendants’ motion to strike this new cause of action.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part defendants’ motion to strike the First Amended Complaint, as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike the First Amended Complaint is DENIED to the
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

extent defendants challenge plaintiff’s deletion of various causes of action that were alleged

in the initial complaint. Plaintiff is GRANTED retroactive leave to amend her complaint to

delete said causes of action.

2. Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED to the extent defendants challenge

plaintiff’s new cause of action for harassment based on sex and disability, and said cause

of action is hereby STRICKEN without prejudice to plaintiff’s seeking leave to amend the

complaint to include such new cause of action.

This order terminates Docket No. 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge