Serna et al v. White et al, No. 1:2020cv00299 - Document 21 (D.N.M. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants Two Briefings to Amend Plaintiffs' Complaint 20 , is FOUND AS MOOT. (mjr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Serna et al v. White et al Doc. 21 Case 1:20-cv-00299-MV-SCY Document 21 Filed 07/07/20 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO EMMA SERNA and MIKE SERNA, Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:20-cv-00299-MV-SCY DANIEL WHITE, DAVID WEBSTER, and MARGETTE WEBSTER, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Two Briefings to Amend Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Doc. 20, filed July 1, 2020. After reviewing pro se Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiffs that they failed to state federal law claims and granted them leave to file an amended complaint. See Order, Doc. 3, filed April 15, 2020. Plaintiffs then filed their Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint. See Doc. 5, filed April 28, 2020. Defendants filed two responses opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. See Doc. 8, filed May 14, 2020 (on behalf of Defendant White); Doc. 11, filed June 1, 2020 (on behalf of Defendants David Webster and Margette Webster). Although titled “Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint,” the Court construed the document to be Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint because: (i) Judge Yarbrough had already granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint; (ii) the document alleges facts, asserts causes of action, and seeks relief; and (iii) the document states: “I submit this Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies …” Doc. 5 at 8. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00299-MV-SCY Document 21 Filed 07/07/20 Page 2 of 2 The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and dismissed this case. See Doc. 18, filed June 30, 2020. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to strike Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint. The Court, having dismissed this case, finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Responses are moot. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants Two Briefings to Amend Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Doc. 20, filed July 1, 2020, is FOUND AS MOOT. _____________________________________ MARTHA VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
