J.M. v. Red Roof Franchising, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/11/25 DIRECTING Plaintiff to notice for hearing 2 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and 20 Motion for Leave to Amend on the undersigned's civil law and motion calendar. Because the court has not granted leave, the court construes 21 as a Proposed Amendment only. The status conference set for 03/27/25 REMAINS on calendar, with a joint status report due 7 days in advance. (Deputy Clerk KML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

J.M., an individual,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:24-cv-03384-KJM-JDP
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Red Roof Franchising, LLC, and
PDF Hospitality, LLC,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff J.M., who alleges she was a victim of sex trafficking at a Red Roof Inn hotel in

19

Stockton, California, filed this action against two defendants: first, Red Roof Franchising LLC,

20

allegedly the franchising division of a parent corporation named Red Roof Inns, Inc.; and second,

21

PDF Hospitality LLC, allegedly the franchisee owner of the Stockton Red Roof Inn. See Compl.

22

¶¶ 10, 12, 26, ECF No. 1.

23

Two motions are currently pending. First, plaintiff moves to proceed under a pseudonym.

24

ECF No. 2. Second, plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 20. Under

25

this district’s local rules, “all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned

26

Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b). Neither of the pending motions cited above

27

was noticed on a motion calendar. Plaintiff is therefore directed to notice the motions at ECF

28

Nos. 2 and 20 on the undersigned’s civil law and motion calendar.
1

1

In the interest of avoiding confusion and clarifying the docket of this action, the court

2

notes the document at ECF No. 21, which purports to be an amendment to the complaint.

3

Because more than 21 days have passed since the original complaint was served, see Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 15(a)(1)(A), because no responsive pleading and no Rule 12 motions have been filed, see

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), and because it is unclear whether all opposing parties named in the

6

original complaint have consented to an amendment, plaintiff may amend only with the “court’s

7

leave,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because the court has not granted leave, the court construes

8

the document at ECF No. 21 as a proposed amendment only. Unless this court approves an

9

amendment to the complaint or an amendment is otherwise proper under Rule 15, this action will

10

proceed on the original complaint at ECF No. 1.

11
12
13
14

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for March 27, 2025 remains on calendar,
with a joint status report due seven days in advance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2025.

15

2