Jane Doe, a victim of sex trafficking v. Shane Harrington, Carl Kramer Sr., Jay...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JANE DOE, a victim of sex trafficking; Plaintiff, 7:25CV5010 vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SHANE HARRINGTON, CARL KRAMER SR., JAY SEDHI HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability corporation; JOEY BAUMBACH, TIMOTHY JEYS, and MELTECH, INC., Defendants.

This matter is before the court after review of the docket and Defendant Carl Kramer Sr.’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Answer Date. (Filing No. 18). Kramer asserts he was served with the First Amended Complaint prior to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint and he requests an extension of at least 21 days to answer or otherwise plead.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the civil remedy provision of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2255 on December 8, 2025. (Filing No. 1). On December 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 3). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added). After amending once as a matter of course, “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). “Filing an amendment to a complaint without seeking leave of court or written consent of the parties is a nullity.” Morgan Distrib.

Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff already amended her complaint once as a matter of course when she filed her amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff needed the court’s leave, or written consent of opposing parties to file the Second Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), See, also, NECivR 15.1(a). Under similar circumstances, the court would strike the pleading filed without leave. However, two defendants have appeared, but neither has filed an answer to or objected to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to show good cause for the amendment and cause why the Second Amended Complaint should not be stricken. Defendants’ answer deadlines are stayed and will be reset accordingly, as to the operative pleading following Plaintiff’s response to this order.

IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff shall have until February 25, 2026 to show cause why the Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 13) should not be stricken.

2) Defendant Carl Kramer Sr.’s motion to extend is granted. (Filing No. 18).

3) The answer deadlines for the two defendants who have appeared in this case, Carl Kramer Sr. and Jay Sedhi Hospitality, LLC, are stayed and will be reset upon Plaintiff’s response to this order. If other defendants appear before Plaintiff has shown cause for the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, their answer deadlines will also be stayed in accordance with this order.

Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.

BY THE COURT: s/ Ryan C. Carson United States Magistrate Judge