Lampkin v. Spangner

Opinion

TRISHKA LAMPKIN and ROBERT No. 2:20-cv-01204-JAM-JDP CORTEZ, Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS, DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA and MATTHEW CORTEZ, Defendants. Before the Court is defendant Superior Court of California’s (“Superior Court”) motion to dismiss (“Motion”) Trishka Lampkin and Robert Cortez’s (“Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint (“FAC”). See Mot., ECF No. 66. Superior Court argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it under the Eleventh Amendment. Id. Superior Court requests the Court dismiss the claims against it without leave to amend or, in the alternative, strike Plaintiffs’ allegations related to Superior Court. Id. Plaintiffs filed a nonopposition, agreeing that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against Superior Court. Nonopp’n, ECF No. 67. Plaintiffs concede to dismissal of the suit as to Superior Court, however, request leave to amend the FAC to add a Superior Court official in his or her official capacity as a new party. Id. at 3:1-2. Plaintiffs have not identified the official they seek to add, nor have they provided a copy of a proposed second amended complaint. Superior Court filed a reply, twelve (12) pages in length, opposing Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Reply, ECF No. 68. Given Plaintiffs’ concession that Superior Court should be dismissed, the Court GRANTS Superior Court’s motion to dismiss claims against it with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. A. Parties’ Failure to Comply with Court Orders and Local Rules Upon review of the Motion, documents filed in support of the Motion, and Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, the parties have failed to comply with prior orders of the Court and this District’s Local Rules. Pursuant to Local Rule 110, the failure of a party to comply with any order of the Court or the Local Rules may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions. The Court addresses the violations below. 1. Plaintiffs’ Addition of Superior Court as a Defendant On March 29, 2023, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Matthew Cortez. Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. for Default Judgment, ECF No. 59. The order stated, “plaintiffs’ claims against Cortez are dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.” Id. at 2:3-4. Further, the Court ordered, “Plaintiffs are granted thirty days from the date of this order to file and serve an amended complaint if they so choose. If Plaintiffs conclude that there are no claims that can be brought against Matthew Cortez they should so inform the Court and this matter will be closed.” Id. at 2:10-12. Plaintiffs argue the March 29, 2023 order “did not restrict the amendment to only the claims of Cortez.” Nonnopp’n at 4:19- 20. The Court disagrees. The order was specific in allowing Plaintiffs to cure deficiencies as to the claims against Matthew Cortez only. “When the language of an order clearly states that a plaintiff may only amend to address certain deficiencies identified in the order, courts have held that a plaintiff is barred from adding new claims or parties.” Jameson Beach Prop. Owners Ass'n v. United States, No. 2:13-CV-01025-MCE-AC, 2014 WL 4925253, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014) (citing Benton v. Baker Hughes, No. CV 12-07735 MMM MRWX, 2013 WL 3353636, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Benton v. Hughes, 623 F. App'x 888 (9th Cir. 2015) and DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 10-CV-01390-LHK, 2010 WL 4285006, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010). Plaintiffs, however, amended their complaint to add Superior Court as a new party. See FAC. By adding a new party, Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s March 29, 2023 order. Given Plaintiffs’ concession to dismissal of Superior Court, the Court does not find sanctions are warranted at this time. /// /// /// 2. Plaintiffs’ Failure to Provide the Court a Copy of Their Proposed Second Amended Complaint Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings and applies where a plaintiff “expressly requests” to amend their complaint. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988). A plaintiff’s request does not have to be through separate formal motion. Id. Here, Plaintiffs’ nonopposition requests leave to amend the FAC. See Nonopp. Although Plaintiffs’ request is not by formal motion, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ express request in their nonopposition as sufficient. Under Local Rule 137(c), if filing a document requires leave of court, such as an amended complaint, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be filed as an exhibit. “When a party fails to comply with Local Rule 137(c), the party's request should be denied.” Herrera v. California Highway Patrol, No. 115CV01882TLNSAB, 2017 WL 590244, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017); See also Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co., 582 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating it is the discretion of the court to deny leave to amend for failure to comply with a local rule requiring the proposed amendment be attached). Here, Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of their proposed second amended complaint. From review of their request for leave to amend, it appears Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint may simply swap out Superior Court from the FAC with an unnamed Superior Court official. See Nonopp’n at 11-12. However, the Court cannot make rulings based on mere assumptions and speculations of what the amendments may be. Absent a copy of the eee ee meee II NE OSI I ED

proposed pleading, the court cannot determine whether their second amended complaint meets the procedural and substantive requirements of Rule 15. The Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the FAC is DENIED. 3, Superior Court’s Twelve (12) Page Reply Memoranda Separately, Superior Court filed a twelve (12) page reply memoranda. See Reply. Superior Court exceeded the Court’s five (5) page limit on reply memoranda. Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 4-2. Violations of the Court’s standing order require the offending counsel (not the client) to pay $50.00 per page over the page limit to the Clerk of the Court. Id. Moreover, the Court will not consider arguments made past the page limit. Id. For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss claims against it WITH prejudice. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the FAC. Further, Superior Court is sanctioned $350.00 payable to the Clerk for the Eastern District of California no later than seven (7) days from the date of this order. DATED: January 2, 2024 opens JOHN A. MENDEZ SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE