Reid v. City Of Oakland
- Jon Tigar
- 4:25-cv-00383
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Reid v. City of Oakland, Judge Hixson granted Reid’s request to file a second amended complaint and required her to replead carried-forward claims.
LaJuana A. Reid, who was allowed to file a second amended complaint; the order also affects the claims and allegations she seeks to continue against the defendants.
What happened
In LaJuana A. Reid v. City of Oakland, et al., the court considered two documents Reid filed concerning changes to her complaint.
The court treated the documents as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to file a second amended complaint. It found good cause to allow the request.
The court granted the request and ordered Reid to file the second amended complaint as a separate docket entry. Judge Thomas S. Hixson also explained that the new complaint replaces the earlier one, so Reid must include again any allegations and claims she wants to continue.
The detailed version
- Reid v. City Of Oakland · No. 4:25-cv-00383
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
On January 21, 2025, LaJuana A. Reid filed two documents: an “Amendment to Defendants Section” and an “Errata to Page 28.” Because Reid filed them as motions to amend, the court construed them as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to file a second amended complaint.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted Reid’s request. It ordered her to file the Second Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry.
The court also stated that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and makes the original legally ineffective. Therefore, any allegations and claims Reid wants to carry forward must be pleaded again in the second amended complaint. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.