Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC

W.D. Washington

Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC

DecidedMarch 10, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-01964

StatusUnknown

This text of Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC (Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 ALEXANDRE B. ZOLOTOVITSKI, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01964-RAJ-BAT 8 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ERRATUM 9 HERE NORTH AMERICA LLC, 10 Defendant.

11 Plaintiff Alexandre B. Zolotovitski moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, to “fix an 12 erratum [to] his Complaint.” Dkt. 46. For the reasons explained herein, Plaintiff’s request is 13 denied. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Rule 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” 16 either “before being served with a responsive pleading” or “within 20 days after serving the 17 pleading if a responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Thereafter, the party must seek the other party’s written consent or the 19 court’s leave in order to amend the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) further 20 states that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 15(a)(2). If a party must seek the court’s leave to file an amended pleading, “leave to amend lies 22 within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 23 183, 185-86 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted). 1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15, a party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must 2 attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulation. The 3 party must indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it 4 amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting

5 the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part 6 of the preceding pleading, including exhibits. If a motion or stipulation for leave to amend is 7 granted, the party whose pleading was amended must file and serve the amended pleading on all 8 parties within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order granting leave to amend, unless the 9 court orders otherwise. 10 Plaintiff is further advised that once an amended complaint is filed, it becomes the 11 operative complaint because it supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal 12 effect. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an erratum to his complaint (Dkt. 46) is DENIED. If 14 Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he should file a motion to amend (with the proposed

15 amended complaint attached), serve the motion on the defendant, and note the motion for the 16 court’s consideration. Plaintiff should also confer with counsel for Defendant to determine if 17 Defendant will agree to the proposed amendment. 18 DATED this 10th day of March, 2021. 19 A 20 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 ALEXANDRE B. ZOLOTOVITSKI, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01964-RAJ-BAT 8 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ERRATUM 9 HERE NORTH AMERICA LLC, 10 Defendant.

11 Plaintiff Alexandre B. Zolotovitski moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, to “fix an 12 erratum [to] his Complaint.” Dkt. 46. For the reasons explained herein, Plaintiff’s request is 13 denied. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Rule 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” 16 either “before being served with a responsive pleading” or “within 20 days after serving the 17 pleading if a responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Thereafter, the party must seek the other party’s written consent or the 19 court’s leave in order to amend the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) further 20 states that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 15(a)(2). If a party must seek the court’s leave to file an amended pleading, “leave to amend lies 22 within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 23 183, 185-86 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted). 1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15, a party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must 2 attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulation. The 3 party must indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it 4 amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting

5 the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part 6 of the preceding pleading, including exhibits. If a motion or stipulation for leave to amend is 7 granted, the party whose pleading was amended must file and serve the amended pleading on all 8 parties within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order granting leave to amend, unless the 9 court orders otherwise. 10 Plaintiff is further advised that once an amended complaint is filed, it becomes the 11 operative complaint because it supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal 12 effect. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an erratum to his complaint (Dkt. 46) is DENIED. If 14 Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he should file a motion to amend (with the proposed

15 amended complaint attached), serve the motion on the defendant, and note the motion for the 16 court’s consideration. Plaintiff should also confer with counsel for Defendant to determine if 17 Defendant will agree to the proposed amendment. 18 DATED this 10th day of March, 2021. 19 A 20 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zolotovitski v. HERE North America LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zolotovitski-v-here-north-america-llc-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack