Randal Jerome Dalavai v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Randal Jerome Dalavai filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) without obtaining a required hearing date. The court declined to strike the motion for this procedural defect and instead set a briefing schedule for the parties to submit opposition and reply briefs.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint is not struck and is taken under submission with a set briefing schedule.“the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the Motion in lieu of striking the Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) by not obtaining a hearing date. The court cited *Kashin v. Kent* to support the proposition that failure to comply with this rule is a sufficient basis to reject a filing. However, the court exercised its discretion to allow the motion to proceed by setting a briefing schedule. This is a permissible exercise of judicial discretion to manage the docket and avoid dismissing a motion on purely technical grounds when the substantive issue can be addressed on the papers. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural defect (failure to obtain a hearing date) and cites the appropriate local rules and case law (*Kashin*) that would typically support striking the motion. However, the court explicitly exercises its discretion to waive this strict requirement in favor of setting a briefing schedule. This is a sound exercise of inherent case management powers and does not require further legal justification beyond the court's discretion. The reasoning is complete for the procedural ruling made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI, Case No.: 25-CV-1841 JLS (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d)
16 (ECF No. 27) 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Randal Jerome Dalavai’s Motion for Leave to 18 File Supplemental Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) (“Mot.,” 19 ECF No. 27). The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to obtain a hearing date from chambers 20 as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(b) (“All hearing dates for 21 any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from the Clerk of the judge to 22 whom the case is assigned.”). 23 “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no 24 empty formality; it is a rule of substantial importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)– 25 (3), the hearing date sets in motion a calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” 26 Kashin v. Kent, No. 02-CV-2495-LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27 26, 2007), aff’d, 342 F. App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). “Furthermore, permitting parties to 28 1 impose hearing dates on the Court impairs the Court’s ability to manage its own calendar 2 to monitor the timeliness of motions.” /d. at *2. While Defendant’s failure to comply 3 || with the Civil Local Rules is grounds to reject the filing, see id. (“Failure to obey the 4 ||requirements of Civil Local rule 7.1(b) and (e)(1) regarding hearing dates was therefore a 5 || sufficient basis on which to reject the first attempted filing.’”’); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 6 || 83.1(a) (providing that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for 7 ||amposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the 8 inherent power of the Court’), the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the 9 || Motion in lieu of striking the Motion. However, the Court cautions the Parties to comply 10 |} with the Civil Local Rules henceforth. 11 The Court finds the Motion appropriate for determination on the papers without oral 12 || argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), declines to set a hearing date, and takes 13 ||the Motion under submission. Defendants SHALL FILE their opposition, or notice of 14 ||non-opposition, to the Motion on or before September 15, 2026. Plaintiff MAY FILE its 15 reply, if any, on or before September 22, 2026. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 27, 2026 (een 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28