>>how he got the Second Amended Complaint, since you don't show it anywhere?
It was served to him.
The problem lies also with the order granting leave to file the amendment. It's not in the docket.
This is probably why Plaintiff could not file his amended complaint.
Now, this is also the one that is fraudulent and probably the best example for the Doctrine of Estoppel
.Previously Plaintiff was alleging that we ceased to reside at the property, now he alleges that we continued to reside at the property in view to claim back-rents on an expired contract.
The amendment is attaching the expired contract again, same situation that caused dismissal previously and the order to attach contracts.
In addition, it is fraudulent because Plaintiff has sent a sworn affidavit of loss to his insurance
company, stating that the house was uninhabitable after the flood and we moved out and the lease
was vacated, hence losses of rents.
Same rents as those claimed for in his amendment..
The lease contract in effect at the date where we vacated is not exhibited.
Instead, Plaintiff exhibits the expired one. Reason : if he exhibits the missing contracts that he was ordered to attach, his claims go to the ground asap.