Basco et al v. Oklahoma City City of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CONNIE BASCO, in her individual )
capacity and as Personal Representative )
of the Estate of STAR SHELLS, )
deceased, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-1143-G
)
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
On May 9, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to amend their initial
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). See Order of May 9, 2024
(Doc. No. 19). Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 20) on May
16, 2024. Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiffs requested
and received leave of Court for an extension of time to file a “response” to the Motion to
Dismiss. See Order of June 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 23).
On the extended due date for the response, Plaintiffs instead filed a “Second
Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiffs did not request or receive “the Court’s
leave” to file this pleading and have not submitted Defendant’s “written consent” to further
amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Accordingly, the “Second Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 24) is without legal
effect and is STRICKEN on that basis. See id.; Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998).
Case 5:23-cv-01143-G Document 25 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court sua sponte extends Plaintiffs’ deadline
to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss to July 3, 2024. No further extensions are
contemplated absent a specific showing on motion of excusable neglect and good cause
pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2024.
Case 5:23-cv-01143-G Document 25 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 2