Cabugawan v. Dana ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RICARDO DELACRUZ CABUGAWAN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00251-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MONICA DANA, HR BUSINESS 9 PARTNER, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Delacruz Cabugawan attempted to sue an HR Business 13 Partner, Defendant Monica Dana, at his former employer Panasonic, for race, age, and 14 disability discrimination. (ECF No. 5 (“FAC”).) The Court adopted the Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 16 6), dismissing some of Cabugawan’s proposed claims with prejudice, but granting him 17 leave to amend his ADA claim against a proper defendant, specifically, Panasonic (ECF 18 No. 7). The Court also warned him in that order that any Second Amended Complaint 19 (“SAC”) he filed “must be complete in and of itself without referring or incorporating by 20 reference any previous complaint. Any allegations, parties, or requests for relief from a 21 prior complaint that are not carried forward in the SAC will no longer be before the Court.” 22 (ECF No. 7 at 2.) 23 Cabugawan filed a SAC, but in it, he does not name Panasonic as the defendant 24 for his ADA claim, nor does he include any proposed claims, or any allegations that could 25 plausibly support them. (ECF No. 8.) This does not comply with the Court’s prior order 26 adopting the R&R (ECF No. 7) or respond to any of the guidance offered in the R&R (ECF 27 No. 6). The Court may dismiss a case for noncompliance with a Court order giving an 28 opportunity to amend. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 1 || (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). 2 || The Court will accordingly give Cabugawan one more chance to file a Third Amended 3 || Complaint (“TAC”) that names a proper defendant, includes a proposed ADA claim, and 4 || includes sufficient factual allegations describing and supporting that claim. (See ECF Nos. 5 || 6, 7.) 6 It is therefore ordered that Cabugawan must file any TAC consistent with this order 7 || within 30 days. As a reminder, any TAC must be complete in and of itself without referring 8 || incorporating by reference any previous complaint. Any allegations, parties, or requests 9 || for relief from a prior complaint that are not carried forward in the TAC will no longer be 10 || before the Court. 11 Itis further ordered that Cabugawan must clearly title his TAC, if he files one, “Third 12 || Amended Complaint.” 13 It is further ordered that, if Cabugawan does not file a TAC within 30 days 14 || consistent with this order, the Court will dismiss this case, in its entirety, with prejudice, 15 || and without further advance notice to Cabugawan—because the Court has already given 16 || him an opportunity to amend and the SAC he filed did not comply with the Court’s prior 17 || order. 18 DATED THIS 25" Day of November 2024. 19 21 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28