Wilson v. Lawton City of

W.D. Oklahoma

Wilson v. Lawton City of

DecidedMarch 13, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00853

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Wilson v. Lawton City of, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ANDRE WILSON, individually and ) on behalf of others who are ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-853-G ) CITY OF LAWTON, OKLAHOMA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 24) a document filed by Plaintiff Andre Wilson titled “Second Verified Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 23). As Defendants argue, the document appears to be an attempt by Plaintiff to amend the operative pleading. Defendants ask that the document be stricken because Plaintiff failed to seek leave of Court to amend as required by the Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 15, as relevant here “ a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff failed to obtain Defendants’ consent or leave of the Court prior to filing this document. “Because [Plaintiff’s] amended [pleading] was not properly filed pursuant to Rule 15, it ha[s] no legal effect and d[oes] not supersede” the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 3). Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998). Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 24) therefore is GRANTED. The “Second Verified Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 23) is hereby STRICKEN from the case record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2025.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ANDRE WILSON, individually and ) on behalf of others who are ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-853-G ) CITY OF LAWTON, OKLAHOMA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 24) a document filed by Plaintiff Andre Wilson titled “Second Verified Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 23). As Defendants argue, the document appears to be an attempt by Plaintiff to amend the operative pleading. Defendants ask that the document be stricken because Plaintiff failed to seek leave of Court to amend as required by the Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 15, as relevant here “ a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff failed to obtain Defendants’ consent or leave of the Court prior to filing this document. “Because [Plaintiff’s] amended [pleading] was not properly filed pursuant to Rule 15, it ha[s] no legal effect and d[oes] not supersede” the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 3). Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998). Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 24) therefore is GRANTED. The “Second Verified Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 23) is hereby STRICKEN from the case record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2025.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Lawton City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-lawton-city-of-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack