Hall v. Google LLC

N.D. California

Hall v. Google LLC

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-06574

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Hall v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JALON R. HALL, Case No. 23-cv-06574-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STRIKE

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: ECF No. 81 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants Google, LLC and Jamila Smith’s (together, “Defendants”) 14 motion to strike, ECF No. 81, Plaintiff Jalon R. Hall’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 77. 15 The Court will grant the motion. 16 Hall filed her initial complaint on December 21, 2023. ECF No. 1. After the parties 17 stipulated to allow Hall to amend her complaint, Hall filed her first amended complaint on August 18 26, 2024. ECF No. 49. Hall then filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2025. ECF 19 No. 77. She did so without obtaining leave from the Court or Defendants’ consent, in violation of 20 the requirements of Rule 15. 21 Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within a certain 22 time of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading 23 only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 24 As Defendants correctly point out, the Court’s setting of February 28, 2025, as the deadline for 25 Hall to file any second amended complaint did not relieve Hall from having to comply with Rule 26 15. See P. Marine Ctr., Inc., No. 1:09 CV 1409 LJO-GSA, 2010 WL 3034510, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 27 July 30, 2010) (“[A]lthough the scheduling order indicated that Plaintiffs needed to forward any 1 of their obligations under Rule 15 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. . . . Therefore, 2 || Defendants’ Motions to Strike the SAC shall be granted.”’). 3 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike Hall’s second amended 4 || complaint. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: June 2, 2025 . 7 JON S. TIGA 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 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 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JALON R. HALL, Case No. 23-cv-06574-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STRIKE

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: ECF No. 81 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants Google, LLC and Jamila Smith’s (together, “Defendants”) 14 motion to strike, ECF No. 81, Plaintiff Jalon R. Hall’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 77. 15 The Court will grant the motion. 16 Hall filed her initial complaint on December 21, 2023. ECF No. 1. After the parties 17 stipulated to allow Hall to amend her complaint, Hall filed her first amended complaint on August 18 26, 2024. ECF No. 49. Hall then filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2025. ECF 19 No. 77. She did so without obtaining leave from the Court or Defendants’ consent, in violation of 20 the requirements of Rule 15. 21 Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within a certain 22 time of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading 23 only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 24 As Defendants correctly point out, the Court’s setting of February 28, 2025, as the deadline for 25 Hall to file any second amended complaint did not relieve Hall from having to comply with Rule 26 15. See P. Marine Ctr., Inc., No. 1:09 CV 1409 LJO-GSA, 2010 WL 3034510, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 27 July 30, 2010) (“[A]lthough the scheduling order indicated that Plaintiffs needed to forward any 1 of their obligations under Rule 15 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. . . . Therefore, 2 || Defendants’ Motions to Strike the SAC shall be granted.”’). 3 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike Hall’s second amended 4 || complaint. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: June 2, 2025 . 7 JON S. TIGA 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Google LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-google-llc-cand-2025.