Opinion
21-cv-08787-AMO
01-03-2024
BLOCKCHAIN INNOVATION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN
RE: DKT. NO. 156
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court's case management scheduling order set December 29, 2023 as the deadline to add parties or amend pleadings. ECF 154. On that date, Plaintiff Blockchain Innovation, LLC filed a second amended complaint. ECF 156. The pleading is unaccompanied by a stipulation permitting its filing or a motion for leave to amend as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). See Sternberg v. Town of Danville, No. 15-CV-01878-SI, 2015 WL 5158735, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (“If more than 21 days have passed since a pleading was served, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend its pleading only if the opposing party consents, or the Court grants leave.”).
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why the second amended complaint should not be stricken. Plaintiff shall file a written response, of no more than three pages, to this order by no later January 8, 2024. Defendants may file a consolidated reply of no more than three pages by no later than January 12, 2024. The deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint is STAYED pending further order of the Court. If the parties reach a stipulation permitting the filing of the second amended complaint, they may file // such stipulation by no later than noon on January 8, 2024, in lieu of any response or reply to this order.
The deadline to respond to the administrative motion to seal portions of the second amended complaint remains as set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.