BURGOS
v.
ENTERTAINMENT 2851, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court dismissed fictitious defendants and struck the amended complaint because the plaintiff failed to identify the fictitious parties and did not follow proper procedure for amending the complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants and continuing to sue fictitious "Does 1 through 10." The court had previously warne…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fictitious Party Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
Jamie Burgos filed an amended complaint and named the following Defendants: Entertainment 2851, LLC; Emperor’s Tampa, Inc.; Southeast Showclubs, LLC; 1613 Ybor City, LLC; MT Investment Funding, LLC; 1611 Entertainment, LLC; Michael Tomkovich; Adam Evans; and Does1 through 10. See Am. Compl. (Doc. 83). For the forgoing reasons, the Court dismisses Does1 through 10 as Defendants to this action and strikes Burgos’s amended complaint.
I. DOES 1 THROUGH 10
Originally, Burgos named only three defendants: Entertainment 2851, LLC, Michael Tomkovich, and Does1 through 10. See Compl. (Doc. 1). A month ago, this Court ordered Burgos to show cause why it should not dismiss Burgos’s suit against Does
to amend her complaint. (Doc. 79 at 4 6, 11.) After discharging the order to show cause, this Court noted that Burgos’s suit against Does1 through 10 would be dismissed if she did not name Does1 through 10 by March 24, 2023. (Doc. 80 at 2.) On March 24, 2023, Burgos submitted an amended complaint, but the amended complaint still sues Does1 through 10 without any identification of who those individuals might be. Am. Compl. at 44 1, 26-27, 91. Because Burgos failed to comply with the Court’s prior orders (and because fictitious-party pleading is not permitted), Burgos’s suit
against Does1 through 10 is dismissed without prejudice. Il. AMENDED COMPLAINT Burgos’s amended complaint also names six new defendants: Emperor’s Tampa, Inc.; Southeast Showclubs, LLC; 1613 Ybor City, LLC; MT Investment Funding, LLC; 1611 Entertainment, LLC; and Adam Evans. Compare Am. Compl., with Compl. But
Burgos failed to move for leave to include these additional defendants before amending her complaint. Under Rule 15(a)(2), FED. R. CIV. P., Burgos may not amend her complaint without the Court’s leave or the written consent of the Defendants. A couple weeks ago, this Court reminded Burgos that she must comply with Rule 15(a)(2) if she desired to amend her complaint, including by filing a motion “setting forth the relief sought and the legal basis entitling her to it.” (Doc. 80 at 2.) The same order alerted her that any motion
must “comply with the Local Rules, including the obligation to confer with opposing counsel about most motions.” (Id. (citing Local Rule 3.01(g)).) Because Burgos’s amendments defy Rule 15 and an earlier order, the amended complaint is stricken. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(1) (authorizing this Court to strike a pleading “on its own”). Il. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. Does1 through 10 are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to
terminate Does1 through 10 as Defendants to this action.
2. Burgos’s amended complaint, (Doc. 83), is STRICKEN. Because Burgos’s amended complaint is stricken, the original complaint, (Doc. 1), remains the
operative pleading. If Burgos desires to submit a second amended complaint that
names new defendants, she must comply with Rule 15(a)(2), FED. R. CIV. P. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 28, 2023.
_ 4 Mizelle : United States District Judge