Diamond Pleasanton Enterprise, Inc. v. The City of Pleasanton
Filing
55
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
DIAMOND PLEASANTON
ENTERPRISE, INC.,
6
Plaintiff,
No. C 12-0254 PJH
7
v.
8
THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
9
Defendants.
_______________________________/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Defendant City of Pleasanton’s motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s second
13
amended complaint (“SAC”) came on for hearing before this court on August 29, 2012.
14
Plaintiff Diamond Pleasanton Enterprise, Inc. (“plaintiff”) appeared through its counsel,
15
George Mull. Defendant City of Pleasanton (“defendant”) appeared through its counsel,
16
Clifford Campbell. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully
17
considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the
18
court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant’s motion, for the reasons
19
stated at the hearing, and orders as follows.
20
1.
The court GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike paragraphs 55 through 63 of
21
the SAC. These paragraphs violate the court’s order dated June 14, 2012, which required
22
plaintiff to seek leave of court before adding any additional claims. See Dkt. 44. The court
23
also GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s corresponding damages prayer,
24
labeled as paragraph (D) in the SAC.
25
2.
The court GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike paragraphs 64 through 75 of
26
the SAC. Again, these paragraphs violate the court’s order dated June 14, 2012, which
27
required plaintiff to seek leave of court before adding any additional claims. See Dkt. 44.
28
The court further notes that paragraph 67 contains allegations of facts that occurred on
1
June 21, 2012, which is well after the date that plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed.
2
Thus, this paragraph also violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which requires a
3
plaintiff to obtain leave of court before supplementing a pleading with “any transaction,
4
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.”
5
3.
The court DENIES defendant’s motion to strike paragraphs 90, 91, and 94
first amended complaint. Thus, these allegations do not constitute a “new” claim. For the
8
same reason, the court DENIES defendant’s motion to strike paragraph (B) of plaintiff’s
9
prayer for damages. However, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike paragraph
10
92, because this paragraph consists of allegations of facts that occurred on April 3, 2012,
11
For the Northern District of California
through 97, because these allegations do correspond to the second cause of action in the
7
United States District Court
6
which is after the filing of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil
12
Procedure 15(d) requires a plaintiff to obtain leave of court before supplementing a
13
pleading with “any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the
14
pleading to be supplemented.” Because plaintiff did not comply with Rule 15(d), any
15
supplementation was improper, and paragraph 92 is stricken from the SAC. The court also
16
GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike paragraph 93, as it contains reference to the “First
17
Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
18
Amendment,” even though plaintiff has already represented that this cause of action is
19
based only on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See generally,
20
Dkt. 51, Ex. A.
21
Finally, the court DENIES defendant’s request for judicial notice. Exhibits A through
22
C of the request are already part of this case’s docket, making judicial notice unnecessary,
23
and Exhibit D of the request is irrelevant to plaintiff’s causes of action.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: August 29, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
