Glass v. Featherly

D. Nevada

Glass v. Featherly

DecidedFebruary 23, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00280

StatusUnknown

This text of Glass v. Featherly (Glass v. Featherly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glass v. Featherly, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 MICHAEL GLASS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00280-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING 6 v. PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 7 FEATHERLY, et al., [ECF No. 17] 8 Defendants.

9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Glass’s (“Glass”) amended complaint. (ECF 10 No. 17.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court strikes the amended complaint and 11 directs Glass to file a motion for leave to amend. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once 13 as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to 14 which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its 16 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 17 should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a 18 strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 19 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended 20 pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Finally, LR 7- 21 2(d) states the failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of a motion 22 constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion. 23 Here, Glass filed his proposed amended complaint without leave and without an 24 accompanying motion or points and authorities in support of his proposed amended 25 complaint. Accordingly, the Court will strike Glass’s amended complaint, (ECF No. 17), 26 for his failure to follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, LR 15-1, and LR 7-2(d). 27 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Glass’s proposed amended complaint, (ECF 2| No. 17), is STRICKEN. 3 DATED: February 23, 2023 . .

4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 MICHAEL GLASS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00280-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING 6 v. PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 7 FEATHERLY, et al., [ECF No. 17] 8 Defendants.

9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Glass’s (“Glass”) amended complaint. (ECF 10 No. 17.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court strikes the amended complaint and 11 directs Glass to file a motion for leave to amend. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once 13 as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to 14 which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) further instructs that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its 16 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 17 should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” and there is a 18 strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 19 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, LR 15-1 requires a party to attach proposed amended 20 pleadings to a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. Finally, LR 7- 21 2(d) states the failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of a motion 22 constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion. 23 Here, Glass filed his proposed amended complaint without leave and without an 24 accompanying motion or points and authorities in support of his proposed amended 25 complaint. Accordingly, the Court will strike Glass’s amended complaint, (ECF No. 17), 26 for his failure to follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, LR 15-1, and LR 7-2(d). 27 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Glass’s proposed amended complaint, (ECF 2| No. 17), is STRICKEN. 3 DATED: February 23, 2023 . .

4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glass v. Featherly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-featherly-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack