Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02170-LAB-LSP

Document 28

Filed 07/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 18, 2008, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the City of San Diego without prejudice. Plaintiff was ordered to obtain leave to amend before filing any amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint, which contains nothing more than a sentence requesting leave to file an amended complaint. He has not explained why his request should be granted -- for example, by attaching a proposed amended complaint as an exhibit, or by explaining how he believes he can amend his complaint to cure the defects identified in the order of dismissal. Although Plaintiff filed his motion ex parte rather than by noticed motion, he failed to comply with the requirements for ex parte applications set forth in the Court's standing order in civil cases. See Standing Order, ¶ 8. /// CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants. MARK DARULIS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07cv2170-LAB (LSP) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

07cv2170

Case 3:07-cv-02170-LAB-LSP

Document 28

Filed 07/07/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The motion to file an amended complaint is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 3, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge

-2-

07cv2170