Langadinos v. Washington State Bar Association

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 GREGORY LANGADINOS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-250 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 WASHINGTON STATE BAR 11 ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BOARD 12 OF GOVERNORS, LISA AMATANGEL, JULIE SHANKLAND, 13 WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT, 14 Defendants. 15

16 On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff Gregory Langadinos moved to amend his 17 complaint, and the Clerk properly noted the motion for consideration on May 21, 18 2024. Dkt. No. 47. Defendants Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) and 19 Washington State Supreme Court responded on May 13, 2024, and May 15, 2024, 20 respectively. Dkt. Nos. 50, 53. Langadinos failed to reply by May 21, 2024. Instead, 21 a week later on May 27, 2024, he moved for “an extension of time.” Dkt. No. 56. The 22 WSBA and State Supreme Court objected. Dkt. No. 57. Then, on May 29, 23 1 Langadinos filed a “preliminary” reply in support of his motion to amend. Dkt. No. 2 59.

3 Although Langadinos proceeds pro se, he must follow the Local Civil Rules of 4 this Court. United States v. $15,333.00 in U.S. Currency, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 5 1234 (D. Or. 2013) (citing Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986)) 6 (“[Pro se litigants] have a duty to comply with the applicable rules of civil procedure 7 and court orders.”). A reply in response to a motion to amend must be “filed and 8 received by the opposing party no later than 21 days after the filing date of the

9 motion.” LCR 7(d)(3). Langadinos failed to file his reply or move for an extension of 10 time before May 21, 2024, as required by LCR 7(d)(3). 11 Langadinos appears to misunderstand the Local Civil Rules, stating he 12 “believes his [r]eply is due Tuesday May 28, 2024.” Dkt. No. 56 at 2. Langadinos 13 argues that he needed an extension until May 31, 2024, because he “must fly to 14 Boston, Massachusetts this Tuesday May 28, 2024, due to [his] [m]other’s admission 15 into [the] Intensive Care unit of Massachusetts General Hospital.” Dkt. No. 56 at 2.

16 Defendants jointly oppose an extension. They argue that Langadinos fails to 17 show good cause and excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(2) because 18 misunderstanding a rule is not an excuse. Dkt. No. 57 at 4-5. Defendants further 19 argue extending the deadline will delay resolution of the case to their detriment, 20 and that Langadinos demonstrates continued disregard of Court rules. Id. at 6 21 (citing Phillips v. KIRO-TV, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1323 (W.D. Wash. 2011)).

22 This case is distinguishable from Phillips. In that case the pro se plaintiff 23 failed to respond to a motion to dismiss even though the court “set a date certain for 1 his opposition” and warned him no further extensions would be granted. Phillips, 2 817 F. Supp. 2d at 1322-23. And there, the pro se plaintiff’s excuse did not justify

3 the delay. See id. at 1323 (“[A] lightning strike might serve as an excuse for one 4 day’s delay, but not three. . . . [and] he simply wanted more time to complete his 5 memoranda.”). Here, the length of delay is justified by Langadinos’s mother’s 6 hospital admission, and the Court has not yet warned that no further extensions 7 will be granted. 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the requested extension and accepts

9 Langadinos’s reply filed May 30, 2024, Dkt. No. 59. Because Langadinos labeled his 10 reply “preliminary,” the Court finds it necessary to clarify that it will not accept any 11 additional replies filed by Langadinos with regard to his motion to amend. The 12 Court also cautions Langdinos to abide by the Federal and Local Rules of Civil 13 Procedure, including all court deadlines, to avoid the Court striking his responses 14 as untimely in the future. 15 Langadinos also claims that he “incorporates [in his reply] a Motion to Strike,

16 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), numerous scandalous and erroneous arguments, 17 points, and legal authorities that [D]efendant WSBA filed in bad faith.” Dkt. No. 59 18 at 1. Other than conclusory statements describing Defendants’ case cites as 19 “erroneous” and “inapplicable,” Langadinos does not identify the portions of 20 Defendant’s briefings that he seeks to strike. See generally id. Accordingly, the 21 Court DENIES Langadinos’s motion to strike.

22 23 1 Dated this 30th day of May, 2024. 2 A 3 Jamal N. Whitehead 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23