United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2021

Escamilla Avina v. Patenaude & Felix, APC

Escamilla Avina v. Patenaude & Felix, APC
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided December 8, 2021
Escamilla Avina v. Patenaude & Felix, APC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE ESCAMILLA AVINA, Case No. 20-cv-0166-BAS-MDD Plaintiff,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF v. TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL CIVIL RULE 15.1(c)

PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Patenaude & Felix, APC and Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. (“Entity Defendants”)’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jorge Escamilla Avina’s Second Amended Complaint (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 25). (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed the SAC after the Court dismissed without prejudice the lone Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim lodged against the Entity Defendants in the First Amended Complaint (First Am. Compl., (“FAC”), ECF No. 9). (Order, ECF No. 23.)1

Under the local civil rules of this district, “[a]ny amended pleading filed after the granting of a motion to dismiss . . . with leave to amend[] must be accompanied by a version of that pleading that shows—through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly The Court, however, found that the FAC asserted a plausible FDCPA claim against Defendant | effective typographic methods—how the pleading differs from the previously dismissed pleading.” Civ. L.R. 15.1(c). Here, Plaintiff filed his SAC without any accompanying documentation that enables this Court to discern immediately the differences between the operative and amended pleadings. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file on the docket in this proceeding a properly demarcated amended pleading, consistent with Local Civil Rule 15.1(c), by no later than December 10, 2021. The Court warns that Plaintiff's failure to do so may result in an order to show cause why the SAC should not dismissed for failure to comply with the local civil rules of this district. See Ervin v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 14-CV-1142-WQQH-BGS, 2015 WL 641244, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2015) (denying motion for leave to amend for failure to file demarcated amended pleading).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /

DATED: December 8, 2021 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.