Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02782
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Leila Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Leung denied Kasso’s motion to change deadlines and disqualify him because it lacked supporting argument.
Leila Kasso’s motion was denied. The order also preserves prior consistent orders and warns that future noncompliance by a party or counsel could result in sanctions or other remedies.
What happened
Leila Kasso, representing herself, asked to amend the scheduling order and disqualify Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The defendants are the City of Minneapolis and others.
The court said Kasso did not file the required legal memorandum. As a result, she did not explain why Judge Leung should be disqualified, why the scheduling order should be changed, or what new dates she proposed. The court also noted that it had repeatedly told her to follow the local rules.
Judge Leung denied Kasso’s motion because she failed to follow Local Rule 7.1 and other procedural requirements. The court left prior consistent orders in effect and warned that future violations could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fees, limits on evidence, or dismissal.
The detailed version
- Kasso v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:23-cv-02782
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
Leila Kasso, who was representing herself, filed a motion to amend the scheduling order and disqualify Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The court stated that the motion was unsupported by argument.
Reason for the ruling
Local Rule 7.1(b) requires a moving party to file several documents at the same time, including a motion and a memorandum of law. The court said it had repeatedly informed Kasso of these requirements and ordered her to comply with the local rules. Although courts generally interpret filings by people without lawyers generously, the court explained that self-represented litigants must still follow procedural and substantive legal rules.
Kasso did not file a memorandum of law. Without one, the court could not determine why she sought to disqualify Judge Leung, why she wanted to amend the scheduling order, or what dates she proposed for an amended schedule. Under Local Rule 7.1(g), the court may take several actions when a party fails to file a memorandum, including considering the matter without oral argument or taking another appropriate action.
Disposition
Judge Leung denied Kasso’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and Disqualify Magistrate Judge Leung. The order states that the denial was based on her failure to file the required memorandum and her repeated failure to follow applicable procedural rules. The order also provides that all prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
Finally, the court warned that violating this order or another consistent prior order could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees and expenses, waiver of objections, limits on witnesses or evidence, striking pleadings, complete or partial dismissal with prejudice, or entry of a complete or partial default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.