# Hall v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · June 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063811

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** June 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063811

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 JALON R. HALL, Case No. 23-cv-06574-JST

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
9 v. STRIKE

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: ECF No. 81
Defendants.
11

12
13 Before the Court is Defendants Google, LLC and Jamila Smith’s (together, “Defendants”)
14 motion to strike, ECF No. 81, Plaintiff Jalon R. Hall’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 77.
15 The Court will grant the motion.
16 Hall filed her initial complaint on December 21, 2023. ECF No. 1. After the parties
17 stipulated to allow Hall to amend her complaint, Hall filed her first amended complaint on August
18 26, 2024. ECF No. 49. Hall then filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2025. ECF
19 No. 77. She did so without obtaining leave from the Court or Defendants’ consent, in violation of
20 the requirements of Rule 15.
21 Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within a certain
22 time of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
23 only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
24 As Defendants correctly point out, the Court’s setting of February 28, 2025, as the deadline for
25 Hall to file any second amended complaint did not relieve Hall from having to comply with Rule
26 15. See P. Marine Ctr., Inc., No. 1:09 CV 1409 LJO-GSA, 2010 WL 3034510, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
27 July 30, 2010) (“[A]lthough the scheduling order indicated that Plaintiffs needed to forward any
1 of their obligations under Rule 15 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. . . . Therefore,
2 || Defendants’ Motions to Strike the SAC shall be granted.”’).
3 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike Hall’s second amended
4 || complaint.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 || Dated: June 2, 2025 .
7
JON S. TIGA
8 United States District Judge
9
10
11
a 12

15
16

it

4 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063811. Public record. Not legal advice.