Hoffman v. Verizon Wireless et al, No. 2:2010cv01170 - Document 26 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION deferring ruling on 15 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/27/2011. (asp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BRENT DAVID HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DEFERRING RULING AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. VERIZON WIRELESS, BRADLY SUMMERS, JESSICA BARRON, ANTHONY BOWMAN, AL RINGGOLD, ED FLOWER, BRIAN CERVINSKI, JULIE EVES, JEANEEN DAVIS AND RYAN WARNER, Case No. 2:10-CV-1170 TS Defendants. The Court has before it Plaintiff Brent David Hoffman s Motion to Amend Above Entitled Case of Discrimination.1 Plaintiff s Motion abstractly discusses the amendments he hopes to include in his amended complaint and attaches a copy of a Notice of Right to Sue issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ). As this Court has stated 1 Docket No. 15. 1 previously, however, [i]n order to file a successful motion to amend his complaint, Plaintiff must include, with the motion, a copy of his proposed amended complaint. 2 Simply discussing the proposed changes and attaching the Notice of Right to Sue is insufficient. Plaintiff must incorporate the changes he wishes to make in his complaint, then provide the court with the amended complaint, in its entirety. 3 To expedite this matter, the Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff s Motion to Amend until a proposed amended complaint is filed with the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to file his proposed amended complaint, which incorporates all changes he wishes to make to his original complaint, with the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Once Plaintiff files his proposed amended complaint, Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days to file an amended response, if any. Once this additional briefing is completed, the Court will rule on the merits of Plaintiff s Motion. Should Plaintiff fail to file his proposed amended complaint within the specified time, the Court will subsequently deny the motion. It is so ORDERED. DATED June 27, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2 Franke v. ARUP Lab., 2008 WL 3192618, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 06, 2008). 3 Id. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.