Cabugawan v. Dana

Filing 9

ORDER -It is therefore ordered that Cabugawan must file any TAC consistent with this order within 30 days. Third Amended Complaint deadline: 12/25/2024. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RICARDO DELACRUZ CABUGAWAN,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-00251-MMD-CSD
ORDER

v.
MONICA DANA, HR BUSINESS
PARTNER,

10

Defendant.

11
12

Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Delacruz Cabugawan attempted to sue an HR Business

13

Partner, Defendant Monica Dana, at his former employer Panasonic, for race, age, and

14

disability discrimination. (ECF No. 5 (“FAC”).) The Court adopted the Report and

15

Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No.

16

6), dismissing some of Cabugawan’s proposed claims with prejudice, but granting him

17

leave to amend his ADA claim against a proper defendant, specifically, Panasonic (ECF

18

No. 7). The Court also warned him in that order that any Second Amended Complaint

19

(“SAC”) he filed “must be complete in and of itself without referring or incorporating by

20

reference any previous complaint. Any allegations, parties, or requests for relief from a

21

prior complaint that are not carried forward in the SAC will no longer be before the Court.”

22

(ECF No. 7 at 2.)

23

Cabugawan filed a SAC, but in it, he does not name Panasonic as the defendant

24

for his ADA claim, nor does he include any proposed claims, or any allegations that could

25

plausibly support them. (ECF No. 8.) This does not comply with the Court’s prior order

26

adopting the R&R (ECF No. 7) or respond to any of the guidance offered in the R&R (ECF

27

No. 6). The Court may dismiss a case for noncompliance with a Court order giving an

28

opportunity to amend. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

1

(affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint).

2

The Court will accordingly give Cabugawan one more chance to file a Third Amended

3

Complaint (“TAC”) that names a proper defendant, includes a proposed ADA claim, and

4

includes sufficient factual allegations describing and supporting that claim. (See ECF Nos.

5

6, 7.)

6

It is therefore ordered that Cabugawan must file any TAC consistent with this order

7

within 30 days. As a reminder, any TAC must be complete in and of itself without referring

8

or incorporating by reference any previous complaint. Any allegations, parties, or requests

9

for relief from a prior complaint that are not carried forward in the TAC will no longer be

10

before the Court.
It is further ordered that Cabugawan must clearly title his TAC, if he files one, “Third

11
12

Amended Complaint.”

13

It is further ordered that, if Cabugawan does not file a TAC within 30 days

14

consistent with this order, the Court will dismiss this case, in its entirety, with prejudice,

15

and without further advance notice to Cabugawan—because the Court has already given

16

him an opportunity to amend and the SAC he filed did not comply with the Court’s prior

17

order.

18

DATED THIS 25th Day of November 2024.

19
20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2