Summary
The court denied without prejudice Paola Castillo’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint because it was procedurally deficient, including failures to comply with motion-separation, meet-and-confer, and standing-order requirements. The court denied the accompanying motion to remand as moot because it was based on a proposed, nonoperative amended complaint. The court permitted any renewed motion for leave to amend to be filed separately within 21 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint should be granted despite its failure to comply with the court's procedural rules and Standing Order.
- Whether Plaintiff's motion to remand should be decided when the operative complaint had not been amended.
Holdings
- Leave to amend was properly denied without prejudice because Plaintiff's motion failed to comply with applicable procedural requirements, including the requirement to present separate requests for different relief, adequately explain why amendment was warranted under Rule 15, meet and confer as required by Local Rule 7-3, and provide the amendment information and redlined pleading required by the Standing Order.
- The request for remand was denied as moot, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new motion to remand based on an operative amended complaint.
Key quotations
“providing a legal standard devoid of any application of that standard to the facts of this case is insufficient to put [Defendant], or the Court, on notice of [Plaintiff’s] argument.” (at 2)
“The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to the request for leave to file an amended complaint.” (at 3)
Factual background
Plaintiff initially asserted claims for whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation for requesting accommodations, and wrongful termination. After Costco removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff proposed adding her former general manager, allegedly a California citizen, and sought remand on the ground that the proposed amended complaint contained no federal claims and would destroy diversity. Plaintiff's motion did not separately present the requested forms of relief, adequately apply Rule 15 to the facts, satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements, or include the changes and redlined pleading required by the court's Standing Order.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a six-claim employment-related complaint in California state court on May 14, 2025. Costco removed the action to the Central District of California on August 28, 2025, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff then moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint and to remand. The court denied leave to amend without prejudice because the motion was procedurally deficient and denied the remand request as moot, also without prejudice.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff may file a compliant, separate motion for leave to amend within 21 days of the order. Plaintiff may bring a motion to remand based on an operative amended complaint.