Carter v. Church, Civ. A. No. 91-40-VAL (WDO).
| Decision Date | 11 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 91-40-VAL (WDO). |
| Citation | 791 F.Supp. 297 |
| Parties | Shirley CARTER, Plaintiff, v. Robert CHURCH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Ethel L. Munson, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Kattegummula Prabhaker Reddy, Atlanta, Ga., Daniel C. Hoffman, Oris D. Blackburn, Jr., Valdosta, Ga., for defendants.
Before the court is plaintiff's motion to strike the supplemental answers and defenses submitted by defendants Robert Church and Richard Rose in response to plaintiff's amended complaint. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and the record as a whole, the court hereby issues the following order.
On April 15, 1991, Shirley Carter ("plaintiff") filed the instant lawsuit alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 31, 1992, plaintiff moved pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15(a) for leave to file an amended complaint to add an additional party plaintiff and claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). In that motion, which was served upon opposing counsel, plaintiff attached her proposed amended complaint. On February 7, 1992, this court granted leave to plaintiff to amend her complaint to include a cause of action under Title VII, but denied leave to include a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) or to add an additional party plaintiff.
Plaintiff never filed nor served the amended complaint once leave to do so had been granted. In late March, defendants Church and Rose filed supplemental answers and defenses "out of an abundance of caution." Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants' supplemental answers and defenses on the ground that they were not pled within ten days after service of the proposed amendment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, F.R.C.P. 15(a) does not address whether the amended pleading must be filed anew once the court grants leave to amend.
In effect, plaintiff contends that F.R.C.P. 15(a) deems a proposed amended complaint, which has been served on opposing counsel, filed on either the date the motion for leave to amend is filed or on the date leave is actually granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweet v. Roy
...have insisted that plaintiff file and serve a full amended complaint, or given the trust more time to answer, see Carter v. Church, 791 F.Supp. 297, 298 (M.D.Ga.1992), the trust seeks reversal of the judgment based on a technical rule that elevates form over substance. See North Georgia Ele......
-
Will v. Frontier Contractors, Inc.
...effect." Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998); Baxter v. Strickland, 381 F.Supp. 487, 491 n. 4 (N.D.Ga.1974). But in Carter v. Church, the court notes that Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) does not specifically "address whether the amended pleading must be filed anew once the court gran......
-
In re
...before a party may be added by way of an amendment to a complaint, see El Chico, 235 Ga.App. at 427, 509 S.E.2d 681;Carter v. Church, 791 F.Supp. 297 (M.D.Ga.1992), we agree that this case does not fall squarely within the line of cases in which permission was never given for adding the par......
-
Welch v. Boardman
...court grants leave to amend. Will v. Frontier Contractors, Inc., 121 Wn. App. 119, 127, 89 P.3d 242 (2004) (citing Carter v. Church, 791 F. Supp. 297, 298 (M.D. Ga. 1992); Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998)). Here, the only evidence of service of the amended complaint on......