Lopez III v. Trans Union LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOTERO MONTELLANO
LOPEZ III,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-12733
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 35)
Defendant Trans Union LLC removed this action from Wayne County
Circuit Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, claiming subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Matthew
F. Leitman referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff Sotero Montellano Lopez III filed an amended complaint on
October 31, 2025. ECF No. 35. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course”
within 21 days after serving the complaint, or within 21 days after service of
a responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). “In all other
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
On August 11, 2025, Lopez served his complaint on TransUnion, and
he served Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., before the time
of removal on August 29, 2025. ECF No. 1, PageID.1-2. Those
defendants answered the complaint in early September 2025. ECF No. 4;
ECF No. 5.
Because Lopez was not authorized under Rule 15(a)(1) to file his
October 31 amended complaint as a matter of course, as it was filed long
after 21 days after service of the original complaint in August, and long
after 21 days after Trans Union’s and Experian’s answers were filed in
early September, the Court STRIKES it (ECF No. 35).
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: November 4, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on November 4, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 3