Yolanda Ferreira v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al

Filing 23

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO PERMIT FILING OF A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 19 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/9/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10 YOLANDA FERREIRA,

Case No. 14-cv-03454 NC

11

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO
PERMIT FILING OF A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., AIR TRAN
14
15

Re: Dkt. No. 19

AIRWAYS, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17

On September 11, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Yolanda

18 Ferreira’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 9. On
19 October 7, defendants filed a notice that Ferreira has failed to timely file (1) an opposition
20 to the motion to dismiss; (2) a statement of non-opposition; or (3) an amended complaint.
21 Dkt. No. 11. The same day, Ferreira filed a statement of non-opposition, indicating that she
22 intends to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 16. On October 8, Ferreira filed a first
23 amended complaint, in conjunction with a “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
24 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Dkt. Nos. 18-19. Despite its title, the
25 memorandum does not oppose the motion to dismiss on the merits, but instead requests the
26 Court to allow the filing of the first amended complaint on the basis that the untimely filing
27 was due to a “miscalendaring error” by Ferreira’s attorney. Dkt. No. 19 at 2. In response,
28 defendants’ counsel filed a letter seeking clarification from the Court “as to how it expects
Case No. 14-cv-03454 NC
ORDER RE: FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

ies
t
nfused state of affairs.” Dkt. No. 21.
e
1 the parti to proceed” in light of the “con

2

ion
By October 15, 2014, Fe
y
1
erreira must file a moti for adm
ministrative relief to pe
ermit

mely
c
nder
L.R.
accompanie by
ed
3 her untim filing of the first amended complaint un Civil L 7-11, a
l
claration tha explains why a stipu
at
ulation
4 either a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or by a dec
ot
ned
l
ants
e
5 could no be obtain as required by the local rules. If defenda with to oppose the
d
r
6 motion, they must do so under Civil L.R. 7-11(b).

7

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

8

Date: Octobe 9, 2014
er

__________
__________
____
____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

9
10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 14-cv-00714 NC
ORDER RE: FIRST AMENDED
R
D
COMPL
LAINT

2