Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a motion entering objections to a prior order that granted leave to amend while also directing defendants to answer the remaining claim if no amendment was filed. The court denied the motion, clarifying that the prior order was not erroneous and reiterating the deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion Entering Objections [Doc. No. 46] is denied.“For these reasons, the Court did not err and the motion entering objections is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's confusion stemmed from a misreading of the procedural options presented in the prior order. The prior order explicitly stated that if the plaintiff did not file an SAC, defendants would answer the remaining claim. The court verified the docket to confirm no answer had been filed, thereby validating the procedural posture. The denial is consistent with the record and the prior order's terms. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short procedural ruling that resolves a party's confusion regarding the mechanics of a prior order. It relies on the docket record to refute the plaintiff's factual premise (that an answer had been filed) and cites standard Ninth Circuit authority regarding the effect of amended pleadings to reinforce the consequences of failing to file the SAC. The reasoning is sufficient for the limited scope of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 John Henry YABLONSKY Case No.: 18cv1122-CAB-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 v. ENTERING OBJECTIONS [Doc. No. 46] 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On October 7, 2019, Defendants D. Powell, G. Martinez, J. Robles, D. McGuire, 19 R. Blahnik, and C. Tiscarnia (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First 20 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 39.] On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff John 21 Henry Yablonsky (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 35.] On December 13, 22 2019, Defendants filed a reply. [Doc. No. 36.] On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 23 sur-reply. [Doc. No. 38.] On June 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler 24 prepared a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motion to 25 dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. No. 39.] On July 14, 2020, this Court 26 issued an order adopting the Report, granting in part and denying in part the motion to 27 28 1 dismiss the FAC, and (should Plaintiff wish to amend the claims that were dismissed) 2 giving Plaintiff until August 7, 2020, to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 3 [Doc. No. 43.] The order also stated that if Plaintiff did not file an SAC (and instead 4 chose to proceed on the claim in the FAC that was not dismissed)2, then Defendants are 5 to file an answer to the remaining claim in the FAC by August 21, 2020. [Doc. No. 43 at 6 3.] 7 On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion Entering Objections pursuant to §636 8 Regarding Courts July 14, 2020 Order. [Doc. No. 46.] In the Motion Plaintiff states he is 9 confused by the July 14 Order because he does not understand why Defendants would be 10 filing an answer to the FAC, when he has been granted leave to file an SAC. [Doc. No. 11 46.] Plaintiff also states that Defendants have already filed an answer to the FAC. [Doc. 12 No. 46 at 1.] However, the docket does not reflect that Defendants have ever filed an 13 answer to the FAC. Rather, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims the FAC. 14 The court then granted the motion to dismiss as to most of the claims, but denied the 15 motion to dismiss as to the Free Speech claim. Therefore, if Plaintiff does not file an 16 SAC by August 7, 2020, the case will proceed as to the remaining claim in the FAC (the 17 Free Speech Claim), and Defendants will then be required to file an answer to that 18 remaining claim in the FAC. 19 For these reasons, the Court did not err and the motion entering objections is 20 DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that he has until August 7, 2020 to file an SAC.3 If 21 22 1 The claims that were dismissed with leave to amend were: 1) Access-to-courts; 2) Retaliation (only as 23 to mail-reading allegations); 3) ADA disability discrimination; and 4) Declaratory relief. 2 The claim that was not dismissed was the Free Speech Claim 24 3 Plaintiff is again reminded that the Second Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without 25 reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Second Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 26 Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims 27 dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”) 28 1 || Plaintiff does not file an SAC by August 7, 2020, then the case will proceed as to the 2 ||remaining claim in the FAC, which Defendants are required to answer by August 21, 3 2020. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: July 28, 2020 € □ 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28