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 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

ALFRED NEWBERRY, )

) No. C06-742RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

FIBERGLASS STRUCTURAL ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

ENGINEERING, INC., and RANDY ) AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

RAPOZA, ) ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint” (Dkt. #24). On February 5, 2007, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss

with leave to amend. See Dkt. #23. Following the Court’s order, plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to amend with a proposed complaint for filing. See Dkt. #24, Ex. A. Defendants do not

oppose amendment. See Dkt. #26 (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

an Amended Complaint). Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. #24) is, therefore, GRANTED. Plaintiff shall

file and serve within ten days of the date of this Order a signed amended complaint substantially

in the form of Exhibit A to his motion.

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint,” however, fails to comply with

the format required by Local Civil Rule 10(e). By filing the non-compliant motion, plaintiff’s

counsel violated the Court’s February 5, 2007 Order that stated:

Case 2:06-cv-00742-RSL Document 27 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2

Newberry v. Fiberglass Structural Engineering Inc et al Doc. 27

Dockets.Justia.com
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 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS -2-

The Court notes at the outset that the format of plaintiff’s response fails to comply

with Local Civil Rule 10(e). Plaintiff’s counsel is strongly urged to comply with

the required pleading format in any future filings with the Court. See Appendix A

to the Local Civil Rules.

See Dkt. #23 (Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss) at 3, n.2. Additionally, as

defendants assert in their response, plaintiff’s counsel failed to properly note the motion in

compliance with Local Civil Rule 7(d)(2). See Dkt. #26. Finally, plaintiff’s local counsel failed

to sign the motion as required by Local General Rule 2(d) (“[A]n associate attorney having an

office in this district and admitted to practice in this court . . . shall sign all pleadings prior to

filing and otherwise comply with CR 10(e) hereof.”).

Under Local General Rule 3(d), attorneys who fail to comply with the Court’s orders or

the local rules are subject to sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. See also Dkt. #12

(Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice) (“I, Charles Finkenbinder, understand that I am

charged with knowing and complying with all applicable local rules”). In light of plaintiff’s

counsel’s repeated disregard for the Local Rules and the Court’s February 5, 2007 order, the

Court hereby SANCTIONS plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $100, payable to the Clerk of

Court (Sanctions). Plaintiff’s counsel is jointly and severally liable for paying the sanction.

 DATED this 15th day of March, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00742-RSL Document 27 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2