CARSON et al v. THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) et al, No. 5:2017cv01949 - Document 45 (E.D. Pa. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' REVISED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, ECF NO. 29, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS MUST FILE A SECOND REVISED AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN 6/15/18. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, ECF NO. 32, IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 6/4/18. 6/5/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SES' AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CARSON et al v. THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) et al Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ CHARLES W. CARSON and TOMOKO CARSON, : : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER : CORPORATION (AMTRAK); : S. CAMPBELL, Amtrak Police Officer; : ADRIAN GIBB DAVIS, Amtrak Police Officer; : JOHN DOE, Amtrak Police Officer, : : Defendants. : __________________________________________ No. 5:17-cv-01949 ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 29, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 32, and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED in part such that Plaintiffs may include in a Second Revised Amended Complaint only the proposed allegations concerning the conduct of Amtrak personnel on March 5, 2017, in paragraphs 29-38, 1 77, 83, and 182-84 of the Revised Proposed Amended Complaint, consistent with the rulings set forth in the Court’s Opinion. If Plaintiffs seek to include these allegations, they must file a Second Revised Amended Complaint no later than Friday, June 15, 2018, consistent with the rulings set forth in the Court’s Opinion. 2 If 1 As indicated in the Opinion, if the Carsons seek to include the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 to 38 in the Second Revised Amended Complaint, they must revise the paragraphs to include only a short and plain description of the Defendants’ alleged conduct on March 5, 2017, and to omit all allegations concerning the Defendants’ written statements, as well as all unnecessary characterization of the alleged conduct. 2 As indicated in the Opinion, beyond the amendments permitted by the Court, the Second Revised Amended Complaint must be identical to the initial Complaint, except that Plaintiffs need not include any allegations or claims that they wish to voluntarily dismiss. Further, the Second Revised Amended Complaint must be complete in all respects and must be a new pleading that stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to any documents already filed. 1 060418 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffs do not file a Second Revised Amended Complaint by this date, the case will proceed on the original Complaint alone; 2. In all other respects, Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion to Amend Complaint is, ECF No. 29, is DENIED; 3. The Court will permit no further amendments absent good cause; 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 32, is DENIED as moot. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 2 060418
]]>
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.
