Lindsey v. American Airline, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER DEEMING 46 NOTICE OF ERRATA AS MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT 40 MOTION TO STRIKE AND 44 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on September 24, 2024. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JAMES EARL LINDSEY,

Case No. 24-cv-01440-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

14

ORDER DEEMING ERRATA AS
MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND

15
I. INTRODUCTION

16
17

This case concerns an altercation between Plaintiff James Earl Lindsey, proceeding pro se,

18

and a flight attendant on an international flight operated by Defendant American Airlines, Inc.

19

(“American”). For the following reasons, Lindsey’s “Notice of Errata” is deemed a motion

20

seeking leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC). Therefore, American’s motion to strike

21

portions of the FAC and Lindsey’s September 3, 2024 motion seeking leave to amend the FAC are

22

both denied as moot.

23

II. BACKGROUND

24

This dispute stems from an incident on an American-operated flight from the Dominican

25

Republic to Miami in February 2024. Lindsey filed suit against American in March 2024, alleging

26

negligent, intentional, and discriminatory conduct on that flight. American’s motion to dismiss

27

Lindsey’s complaint, on the grounds that the Montreal Convention preempted his claims, was

28

granted on July 18, 2024. See Dkt. 33. Lindsey then filed a first amended complaint. See Dkt. 35.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

American filed both an answer and a still-pending motion to strike portions of the FAC. See Dkt.

2

39 and Dkt. 40. On September 3, 2024, Lindsey filed a document titled “Second Motion to

3

Amend,” which appears to seek leave to amend his FAC. See Dkt. 41. American timely filed its

4

opposition to that motion on September 17, 2024. See Dkt. 45. Two days later, Lindsey filed a

5

“Notice of Errata” explaining that he intended for his September 3 motion to replace the FAC

6

entirely with his second amended complaint. See Dkt. 46. On September 24, 2024, American filed

7

objections to Lindsey’s errata. See Dkt. 47.

8

III. LEGAL STANDARD

9

Pro se litigants are not held to the same standard as admitted or bar-licensed attorneys.

10

E.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pleadings by pro se litigants, regardless of

11

deficiencies, should only be judged by function, not form. Id. Nonetheless, a pro se plaintiff is not

12

entirely immune from the civil rules and “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern

13

other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that parties may amend their pleadings once

15

as a matter of course, provided that amendment occurs within 21 days of service or, if the pleading

16

is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of that responsive pleading.

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Rule 15 also states that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice

18

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit holds “[t]his policy is to be applied with

19

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

20

(quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Courts

21

generally consider four factors: (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3)

22

prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371

23

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the most weight.

24

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. In addition, courts may also consider whether the plaintiff

25

has previously amended his complaint. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., 2017 WL

26

3149297, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017).

27

IV. DISCUSSION
ORDER ON ERRATA AND PENDING MOTIONS
CASE NO. 24-cv-01440-RS

28
2

1

American contends that because Lindsey has incorrectly filed a notice of errata instead of

2

seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, any attempt to file his SAC should be denied.

3

While a notice of errata is not the correct procedural mechanism, Lindsey as a pro se litigant is not

4

held to the same standard as a represented party. Considering the function rather than the form of

5

Lindsey’s notice of errata, it is reasonable to consider Lindsey’s September 19, 2024 filing as in

6

fact a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Lindsey is still bound by procedural

7
8
9

rules and no part of this Order should be construed as exempting him from the proper procedural
channels now that he is on notice. Moreover, this order does not adopt Lindsey’s proposed
deadline to amend the pleadings without need to seek leave.
American also avers that treating the errata as a motion seeking leave to file would be

10

prejudicial to their interests. American is particularly concerned that the filing of an SAC would
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

circumvent its pending motion to strike, as Lindsey’s allegations in the SAC mirror those in the
12
FAC. However, American’s motion to strike is merely dismissed as moot in light of this grant of
13
14
15

leave to file the SAC. American is free to file an opposition to Lindsey’s September 19, 2024
filing, which shall be construed as seeking leave to file his second amended complaint. See Dkt.
46-1.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: September 24, 2024
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER ON ERRATA AND PENDING MOTIONS
CASE NO. 24-cv-01440-RS

28
3