Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva represented herself in claims against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs related to the termination of her employment. The claims involved leave connected to international travel for in vitro fertilization treatment. Claims against the Department had been dismissed, leaving the Secretary as the only remaining defendant.

In an earlier ruling, the district court dismissed Drevaleva’s claims. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed dismissal of her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Constitution, and state law. It reversed the dismissal of her Title VII sex-discrimination claim and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim and sent those claims back for further proceedings.

After the case returned, Drevaleva filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, a request related to appointing counsel and scheduling, a motion for permission to file a reply, a motion to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision and the earlier judgment, and a second amended complaint. The defendants moved for more time to respond to the second amended complaint.

Rulings

The court denied Drevaleva’s motion to vacate. It held that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was final and that the district court was bound by it. The court explained that Drevaleva’s available avenues for challenging that decision had been proceedings in the Ninth Circuit or a request for review by the Supreme Court. The court separately vacated the judgment as to the Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims, to the extent the judgment had not already been vacated, and stated that the case would proceed only on those claims.

The court struck the second amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. That rule generally permits amendment without permission only within specified 21-day periods; after those periods, a party needs the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court found that those periods had expired and that Drevaleva did not appear to have obtained consent or leave. Because the complaint was stricken, the court denied the defendants’ motion for an extension of time as moot. The court directed the parties to confer about whether Drevaleva could amend her complaint and stated that any amendment could not include claims whose dismissal the Ninth Circuit had affirmed.

The court denied Drevaleva’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary order requiring a party to take or stop taking an action before the case is finally decided. The court stated that Drevaleva’s motion offered arguments about needing money to travel to Russia to care for her aunt and obtain medical treatment, but no evidence showing a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, and did not establish the other required factors. The court also barred further motions for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order without court permission.

The court granted Drevaleva’s request to file a reply and stated it would consider the evidence she submitted about efforts to obtain counsel. It set a case management conference for April 30, 2021, and stated that it would address her motion to appoint counsel at that conference. The deadline for the defendants to answer the original complaint was stayed while the amendment issue was resolved.

Disposition

The second amended complaint was STRICKEN. Drevaleva’s motion to vacate and motion for a preliminary injunction were DENIED. Drevaleva was granted leave to file a reply, and the defendants’ motion for an extension of time was DENIED AS MOOT. The case continued only as to the Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims. The order was issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.