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)

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, www.uscourts.cand.gov. 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-