Hall v. Google LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-06574
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hall v. Google LLC, Judge Tigar granted the defendants’ motion to strike Hall’s second amended complaint for violating Rule 15.
Jalon R. Hall, Google LLC, and Jamila Smith; the order struck Hall’s second amended complaint.
What happened
In Hall v. Google LLC, Jalon R. Hall filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2025, after previously filing an initial complaint and a first amended complaint.
Google LLC and Jamila Smith asked the court to strike the second amended complaint. They argued, and the court agreed, that Hall filed it without the defendants’ written consent or the court’s permission, as required by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion to strike the second amended complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Google LLC · No. 4:23-cv-06574
- Jon Tigar
- June 2, 2025
Background
Jalon R. Hall filed the initial complaint on December 21, 2023. After the parties stipulated to allow an amendment, Hall filed a first amended complaint on August 26, 2024. Hall filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2025.
Motion and governing rule
Google LLC and Jamila Smith moved to strike the second amended complaint. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within specified time limits. In other cases, the party must obtain the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave before amending.
The court found that Hall filed the second amended complaint without obtaining either the defendants’ consent or the court’s permission. The court also held that its scheduling deadline for filing a second amended complaint did not eliminate Hall’s separate obligation to comply with Rule 15.
Ruling
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the defendants’ motion to strike Hall’s second amended complaint. The order addressed the filing requirements for the amended pleading and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.