FARM-TO-CONSUMER LEGAL DEFENSE FUND et al v. SCHAFER et al
Filing
25
ORDER denying as moot 12 and 13 Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment; granting 20 Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint. See attached Order for further details. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 1/22/09. (lcrmc2)
<![CDATA[
FARM-TO-CONSUMER LEGAL DEFENSE FUND et al v. SCHAFER et al
Doc. 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FARM-TO-CONSUMER LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ED SCHAFER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 08-1546 (RMC)
ORDER On September 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint seeking to enjoin Defendants from implementing and enforcing the National Animal Identification System. See Dkt. # 1. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. See Dkt. ## 12 & 13. On November 19, 2008, Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time until January 2, 2009 to file their oppositions to the motions. See Dkt. # 14. By Minute Order dated November 21, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion. See 11/21/08 Minute Order. However, Plaintiffs failed to timely file their oppositions because counsel inadvertently read the Court's Minute Order as extending the time to file oppositions to January 12, 2009. See Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File at 2. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, which was filed on January 10, 2009. See Dkt. # 20. Defendants oppose the motion because the Court's November 21, 2008 Minute Order did not give Plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint, the proposed amended complaint allegedly violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Dockets.Justia.com
and the proposed amended complaint does not cure the asserted defects in the Complaint. See Dkt. ## 21 & 23. Defendants do not dispute that Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "guarantee[s] a plaintiff an absolute right to amend its complaint once at any time before the defendant has filed a responsive pleading." James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 282-83 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Nor do Defendants dispute that no responsive pleading has been filed in this case. See id. at 283 ("a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Rule 15"). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are "entitled as a matter of right to amend [their] complaint . . . ." Id. The Court will address any arguments that the amended complaint is defective and/or violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if and when Defendants file motions to dismiss the amended complaint on those bases. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [Dkt. # 20] is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment [Dkt. ## 12 & 13] are DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED.
Date: January 22, 2009
/s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge
-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?
