Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Defendant
Fernando Yates
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FERNANDO YATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dkt. No. 44

Plaintiff Fernando Yates (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint. See

Mot., Dkt. No. 44. In the Motion, Plaintiff generally describes the amendments he wishes to make 

to the Complaint, but he fails to attach the proposed amended complaint. See id. This violates the 

Court’s Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 10-1 (“Any party filing or moving to file an 

amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part 

of a prior pleading by reference.”).

1

 Neither Defendant nor the Court can evaluate the proposed 

amendments if Plaintiff does not provide the actual proposed amended complaint in its entirety. 

The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion, but does so WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. The deadline for seeking leave to amend the pleadings is not until February 27, 

2017. See Case Management Order at 2, Dkt. No. 41. Plaintiff may renew his request for leave to 

file an amended complaint at any point before that deadline, attaching his proposed amended 

complaint to the renewed motion. The Court encourages Plaintiff to renew his motion as soon as 

he can conveniently do so and not to wait until the February 27, 2017 deadline, as undue delay 

may be used as a basis for denying leave to amend.

 

1

The Court’s Local Rules are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil.

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 48 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Finally, the Court appreciates that Plaintiff attempted to secure Defendant’s counsel’s 

agreement to the amendment before filing the Motion. See Mot. at 3. The Court encourages 

Plaintiff to contact Defendant’s counsel with the proposed amendment when it is prepared and 

again seek counsel’s agreement in an effort to avoid unnecessary motion practice and “secure the 

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 48 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2