Johnson v. General Dynamics Information Technology

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Amina Johnson, Case No. 2:24-cv-02033-CDS-EJY 5 Plaintiff Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint v. General Dynamics Information Technology, [ECF No. 68] 8 Defendant 10 On May 19, 2025, I allowed plaintiff Amina Johnson to file a second amended complaint (SAC) provided that it met the following requirements: (1) the motion attached a copy of the proposed SAC in accordance with Local Rule 15-1(a); (2) the SAC must be filed by June 9, 2025; (3) the SAC must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (4) the SAC must be complete in and of itself, must not refer in any manner to any prior complaint, and must include all of the claims and factual basis in support of those claims she wishes to assert against defendant General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT). See Order, ECF No. 67 at 8. On May 27, 2025, Johnson filed a motion for leave to file a SAC with the proposed SAC attached.

18 Mot., ECF No. 68. GDIT opposes the motion, arguing, in sum, that the motion fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and raises statute of limitations questions.

20 See Opp’n, ECF No. 69.

21 Conclusion 22 Liberally construing the proposed SAC1 reveals that it substantially complies with my prior order. Therefore, Johnson’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint [ECF No. 1 See Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A pro se complaint must be ‘liberally construed,’ since ‘a pro se complaint, however clumsily pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).

1 68] is GRANTED. Defendant’s opposition raises issues that can be addressed via motion to 2|| dismiss.

3 The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to detach the SAC from the motion for leave and 4|| to docket it, and its exhibits, separately.” /, ) 5 Dated: July 29, 2025 LZ ‘ Cristing’D. Silva 7 U tel States District Judge ll * ? Johnson is reminded that she must comply with the local rules. Because her exhibits are more than 100 pages, the Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to attach them separately in compliance with LR IA 10-3(i) and LR IC 2-2(a)(3){A), in a manner most convenient to it.