Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:21-cv-08787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Blockchain Innovation v. Franklin Resources, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Blockchain Innovation to explain why its second amended complaint should not be stricken.
Blockchain Innovation, LLC and the defendants in the case, including Franklin Resources, Inc.; the order directly required a response from Blockchain Innovation and paused defendants’ response deadline.
What happened
In Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc., Blockchain Innovation filed a second amended complaint on the deadline for amending pleadings or adding parties.
The filing did not include either the parties’ agreement or a request for the court’s permission, which the court said was required. The court ordered Blockchain Innovation to explain why the complaint should not be stricken and temporarily paused the deadline for defendants to respond to it.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin gave Blockchain Innovation until January 8, 2024, to file a response and allowed defendants to file a reply by January 12, 2024. The court also allowed the parties to file an agreement permitting the amended complaint instead of those filings.
The detailed version
- Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-08787
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
The case management scheduling order set December 29, 2023, as the deadline to add parties or amend pleadings. Blockchain Innovation, LLC filed a second amended complaint on that date.
Court’s Concern
The court stated that the filing was not accompanied by a stipulation permitting it or by a motion for leave to amend. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the court explained that, after the applicable period for amendment without permission has passed, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission.
Order
The court ordered Blockchain Innovation to show cause—meaning to explain—why the second amended complaint should not be stricken. Blockchain Innovation’s written response, limited to three pages, was due January 8, 2024. Defendants could file a consolidated reply of no more than three pages by January 12, 2024. The deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the second amended complaint was stayed pending further order. The parties could instead file a stipulation permitting the amended complaint by noon on January 8, 2024.
The order did not itself strike the second amended complaint. It required a response before the court decided whether to do so.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.