Cristobal v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER re 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/12/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 OAKLAND DIVISION 8 ABSOLOM CRISTOBAL, Case No: C 11-3114 SBA 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 vs. 11 SECURITAS SECURITY SYSTEMS USA 12 INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pro se plaintiff Absolom Cristobal filed the instant action against his former 16 employer, Securitas Security Systems USA Inc., in state court on May 24, 2011. On June 17 23, 2011, Defendant filed an answer in state court and removed the action under Section 18 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. 19 On or about September 29, 2011, Plaintiff lodged an Amended Complaint with the 20 Court. The time for Plaintiff to amend as a matter of right has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 15(a) (plaintiff may amend twenty-one days after serving the complaint or within twenty- 22 one days of service of a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier). As 23 such, Plaintiff may amend the Complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or 24 the court’s leave.” Id. 15(b). Here, Plaintiff did not accompany his proposed pleading with 25 a stipulation to file an Amended Complaint. Although the last page of the proposed 26 pleading includes a one-sentence request for permission to file the complaint, Plaintiff 27 should instead have filed a motion for leave to amend in accordance with Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 7. 1 Plaintiff should be aware that although he is acting pro se (i.e., without an attorney) 2 he nevertheless remains obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties. See 3 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings 4 liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”) (per curiam); 5 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). Self-representation is not an 6 excuse for non-compliance with Court rules. See Swimmer v. I.R.S., 811 F.2d 1343, 1344 7 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[i]gnorance of court rules does not constitute excusable neglect, even if 8 the litigant appears pro se.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with any 9 procedural requirements, including any Court order, may result in the imposition of 10 sanctions up to and including dismissal of the action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 11 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s request to file an Amended Complaint 13 is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint, he must 14 first meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel in an effort to reach a stipulation (i.e., an 15 agreement) to allow him to file an Amended Complaint with the Court. If Plaintiff is 16 unable to reach such an agreement, he may file a motion for leave to amend in accordance 17 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Such a motion should be filed in accordance with 18 the Court’s Standing Orders and the Court’s Local Rules (including but not limited to Rule 19 7), both of which are available on the Court’s website, The Clerk 20 shall return the proposed Amended Complaint to Plaintiff. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 12, 2011 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ABSALOM CRISTOBAL, 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES et al, Defendant. / 9 10 Case Number: CV11-03114 SBA 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 13 14 15 16 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 13, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Absalom Cristobal 1017 L Street, #750 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dated: October 13, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?