Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Webb Hill, Case No. 2:21-cv-02113-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Wynn Resorts, Limited d/b/a Encore Las 9 Vegas,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Before the Court are Defendant’s motions to strike Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 13 and notice. (ECF Nos. 46 and 47). Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint 14 because Plaintiff did not seek Defendant’s approval or the Court’s leave before filing it. (ECF 15 No. 46). Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s notice because it is an improper filing. (ECF No. 16 27). Because the Court has already ordered the notice stricken, it denies the motion to strike the 17 notice as moot. (ECF No. 27). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not followed the federal 18 or local rules in filing his amended complaint, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike the 19 amended complaint. (ECF No. 26). 20 On June 29, 2022, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s “notice” be stricken from the record. 21 (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff appeared to have cc’d the Court’s docketing email on an email to 22 opposing counsel and the Court found this to be an improper filing. (Id.). The Court thus denies 23 Defendant’s motion to strike this document as moot. (ECF No. 47). 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), if a party does not amend within twenty- 25 one days after serving their pleading, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s written 26 consent or the court’s leave. Under Local Rule 15-1, a party moving to amend must attach the 27 proposed amended pleading to a motion seeking leave of the court. Under Rule 12(f) of the 1 any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 2 Additionally, the Court may strike an improper filing under its “inherent power over the 3 administration of its business.” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995). Like Rule 4 12(f) motions to strike, striking material under the Court’s inherent power is wholly discretionary 5 See Almy v. Davis, No. 2:12-cv-00129–JCM–VCF, 2014 WL 773813, at *4–5 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 6 2014); Jones v. Skolnik, No. 3:10-cv-0016-LRH-VPC, 2015 WL 685228, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 7 2015). 8 Here, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint without first moving to amend the complaint 9 and after twenty-one days of serving it. (ECF No. 41). It thus violates the federal rules and the 10 local rules. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint is improperly filed—and thus immaterial— 11 the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike it. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended 14 complaint (ECF No. 46) is granted. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike Plaintiff’s 15 amended complaint (ECF No. 41) from the docket. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s notice (ECF 17 No. 47) is denied as moot. 18 19 DATED: July 25, 2022 20 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27