Enjalran

(PS) Nelson Rogers v. Enjalran

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 31, 20192:19-cv-01564California682 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARY A. NELSON ROGERS, No. 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER PAUL J. ENJALRAN, et al., (ECF No. 21) Defendants. 16 Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s second motion to amend her complaint. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons set forth below, the court grants plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint only named two defendants, Paul Enjalran and Kamal Kaur, omitting several defendants named in the original complaint. (Compare ECF No. 1 at 2-7 with ECF No. 18 at 2-4.) On December 17, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF No. 19.) The court additionally instructed plaintiff that her “amendment as a matter of course renders [her] original complaint non-existent” (ECF No. 19), and ordered plaintiff to file a response explaining why the court should not dismiss, pursuant to Federal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.