Ocampo v. Apple Inc.

Background

Ocampo initially filed a putative class action seeking damages under various consumer-fraud and advertising laws. Ocampo and additional plaintiffs later filed a First Amended Complaint under a stipulation in which Apple agreed that Ocampo could file it by November 23, 2020. Apple then moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Twenty-one days after Apple filed that motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint without Apple’s additional written consent or the court’s permission. Apple responded by moving to strike the Second Amended Complaint.

Legal standard and issue

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike certain improper material from a pleading. The issue was whether the plaintiffs’ earlier filing of the First Amended Complaint used up their right to amend once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).

Rule 15(a)(1) permits a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12 motion, among other specified periods. Other amendments generally require the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent explaining that an amendment filed with consent under Rule 15(a)(2) does not exhaust the later right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1), if the later amendment is timely.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the stipulation expressly allowed Ocampo to file the First Amended Complaint and therefore constituted Apple’s written consent under Rule 15(a)(2). Filing that complaint did not exhaust the plaintiffs’ separate right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1).

The plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint 21 days after Apple filed its motion to dismiss. The court therefore concluded that the Second Amended Complaint was permissible under Rule 15(a), even though the plaintiffs did not obtain new written consent or leave of court.

Disposition

The court DENIED Apple’s motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. It also DENIED as moot Apple’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and stated that the Second Amended Complaint was the operative complaint. Under the parties’ joint stipulation, Apple had 10 days after the order to file a responsive pleading. The order decided the amendment issue and did not decide the underlying consumer-fraud or advertising claims.