Castillo-Antonio v. Darweesh
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-03434
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Castillo-Antonio v. Darweesh, Magistrate Judge Corley terminated an unnecessary amendment motion because Castillo-Antonio could amend without court permission.
Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio may amend his complaint once as a matter of right at this stage without obtaining a court order; the motion to amend was terminated as unnecessary.
What happened
In Castillo-Antonio v. Darweesh, the plaintiff asked to amend his complaint to add HMDA Inc. as a defendant. The motion was unopposed, and the scheduled hearing was set to occur on December 5, 2019.
The court explained that the named defendants had been served but had not appeared or filed a response. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the plaintiff could amend the complaint once as a matter of right, so a court order was not necessary.
The court vacated the hearing and terminated the motion rather than ruling that amendment permission was granted or denied. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on November 18, 2019.
The detailed version
- Castillo-Antonio v. Darweesh · No. 3:19-cv-03434
- William Orrick
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio moved to amend his complaint to add HMDA Inc. as a defendant. The motion was unopposed, and the court had scheduled oral argument for December 5, 2019. The named defendants had been served but had not appeared in the action or filed a responsive pleading.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint once as a matter of right within specified periods connected to service of a responsive pleading or certain motions. The court concluded that the rule also permits amendment as a matter of right before a defendant files a responsive pleading. Because the defendants had not filed such a pleading or a qualifying motion, Castillo-Antonio did not need court permission to amend at this stage.
Ruling
The court vacated the hearing and terminated the motion because it was unnecessary. The order did not grant or deny the requested amendment; it stated that Castillo-Antonio could amend as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order, which terminated Docket No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.