Desmaine v. Columbia Sportswear Company, No. 3:2024cv00067 - Document 50 (D. Or. 2024)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 48 ). Signed on 10/21/2024 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (Deposited in outgoing mail to Plaintiff on 10/22/2024.) (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Desmaine v. Columbia Sportswear Company Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON SELENA DESMAINE, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-00067-SB OPINION AND ORDER v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, Defendant. BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Selena Desmaine (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented litigant, moves for leave to file a second amended complaint against Columbia Sportswear Company (“Defendant”). The Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 48) for two reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule (“LR”) 15-1. See LR 15-1(a)-(b) (“A motion for leave to file an amended or supplemental pleading must describe the proposed changes. . . . An amended or supplemental pleading may not incorporate by reference any part of the prior pleading, including exhibits. . . . A copy of the proposed amended or amended pleading that shows—through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com effective methods—how the amended pleading differs from the operative or superseded pleading must be attached as an exhibit to . . . [a] motion for leave to file the amended pleading[.] . . . [Only] [s]elf-represented persons who are in custody are exempted from the exhibit requirement.”). Second, Plaintiff failed to comply with Court’s previous order reminding Plaintiff that she must comply with the local rules and court orders. See Op. & Order at 2-3, ECF No. 18 (reminding “Plaintiff that she must comply with local rules and court orders” (first citing Ovitsky v. Oregon, 594 F. App’x 431, 431-32 (9th Cir. 2015); then citing Scott v. Diaz, 286 F. App’x 508, 509 (9th Cir. 2008); then citing McGee v. California, No. 2:16-cv-01796, 2017 WL 902944, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017); and then citing Hadsell v. Sickon, No. 08-cv-01101-MO, 2009 WL 1290851, at *3 (D. Or. May 5, 2009))); see also Scott, 286 F. App’x at 509 (“The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [the self-represented plaintiff’s] actions for failure to comply with court orders and local rules after warning [him] that non-compliance could result in the dismissal of his action.”); McGee, 2017 WL 902944, at *1 (noting that the plaintiff’s “pro se status [did] not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[], Local Rules, and court orders”); Hadsell, 2009 WL 1290851, at *3 (stating that “a district court may dismiss an action when a pro se plaintiff has refused to communicate with defendants and failed to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court’s orders”) (citation omitted). For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 48). See Ovitsky, 594 F. App’x at 431-32 (holding that “[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying [the self-represented plaintiff’s] motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [in part] because [the self-represented plaintiff’s] motion PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER failed to comply with local rules,” including LR 15-1, which at the time similarly provided that “an amended pleading may not incorporate any part of the prior pleading by reference and any party moving for leave to file an amended pleading must describe the proposed changes”) (simplified). Considering that Plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented litigant and identifies herself as a “Tibetan woman who faces a language barrier” (Op. & Order at 3, ECF No. 18, citing ECF No. 15), the Court grants Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the above described failure to comply with LR 15-1, and leave to re-file her motion for leave to amend by October 28, 2024. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file (by October 28, 2024) a combined (1) response to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, and (2) request for leave to amend addressing her ability to cure, proposed amendments, and related arguments. See ECF Nos. 44, 48 (granting Plaintiff’s request for a sixty-day stay and ordering Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 40) by October 15, 2024, and showing that Plaintiff instead filed only a motion for leave to amend on October 9, 2024). The Court, however, warns Plaintiff that it will not grant any additional extensions of time and Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with the Court’s local rules and orders may result in dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of October, 2024. HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN United States Magistrate Judge PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
