Okai v. Office and Professional Employees International Union - Local 30

── Okai v. Office and Professional Employees International Union - Local 30 ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAA-ANORKOR OKAI, No. 24-5035 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-00112-TWR-DTF v. MEMORANDUM* OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION - LOCAL 30; KAISER PERMANENTE INTERNATIONAL; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Naa-Anorkor Okai appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Flaxman v. Ferguson, 151 F.4th 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2025) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Okai’s action because, despite being granted multiple opportunities to amend, Okai’s third amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8, and her breach of duty of fair representation claim was untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1290 (9th Cir. 2026) (explaining that “pleadings that do not tie factual averments against specific parties to individual causes of action” violate Rule 8); Stone v. Writer’s Guild of Am. W., Inc., 101 F.3d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a “claim for breach of the duty of representation is governed by the six month federal statute of limitations”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Okai’s complaint with prejudice because amendment would be futile and the district court gave Okai multiple opportunities to amend with detailed instructions. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 2 24-5035 the standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile); Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that dismissal with prejudice was proper because “the district court gave plaintiffs several chances to amend, with detailed instructions as to what they needed to do to fix the problems with their complaint”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Okai’s motion to appoint counsel because Okai did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard of review and standard for the appointment of counsel). The district court did not abuse its discretion by giving Okai too little time to amend her complaint. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth t