Foothills Christian Church v. Johnson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson (2025-08-14) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the action after plaintiffs failed to file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline set in a prior order. The court converted the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint into a dismissal of the entire action and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the entire action“Accordingly, the Court converts its dismissal of the First Amended Complaint into a dismissal of the instant action.” | agree with court The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The order recites that the deadline passed without a filing. Converting a dismissal with leave to amend into a dismissal of the action is a standard procedural mechanism when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order to amend. |
Dismissal of Free Exercise Clause claims with prejudice“The Court reiterates that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Free Exercise Clause are dismissed with prejudice” | agree with court The order states this is a reiteration of the prior ruling (ECF No. 27). The current order does not provide the underlying reasoning for the merits dismissal, but it correctly applies the prior determination to the final dismissal of the case. |
Dismissal of remaining claims without prejudice“but Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court Consistent with the prior order (ECF No. 27) which dismissed certain claims without prejudice to allow amendment. Since the action is now dismissed, these claims are dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to potentially refile in a new action if they cure the defects. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural disposition based on the failure to meet a court-imposed deadline. It correctly cites Ninth Circuit authority for the conversion of dismissal. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural step taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FOOTHILLS CHRISTIAN Case No. 22-cv-0950-BAS-DLL MINISTRIES; THE GROVE CHURCH; 12 and JOURNEY COMMUNITY ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 CHURCH, FAILURE TO AMEND 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 KIM JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Director of the California 17 Department of Social Services; and 18 ROBERT ANDRES BONTA, in his official capacity as the Attorney General 19 of the State of California, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Plaintiffs The Grove Church, Journey Community Church, and Foothills Christian 23 Ministries (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action stating various constitutional 24 claims against the California Child Day Care Facilities Act. (ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, 25 Defendants Kim Johnson, Director of the DSS, and Robert Bonta, the Attorney General of 26 the State of California (collectively, “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the case twice for 27 both failure to sufficiently plead standing and for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 13, 28 24.) Both times, the Court granted the motion. (ECF Nos. 19, 27.) Most recently, the 1 ||}Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, granting Plaintiffs leave to amend 2 ||those claims the Court dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 27 at 30-31.) Plaintiffs, 3 should they desire to amend their complaint a second time, were to do so on or before June 4 || 10, 2024. (Ud. at 31.) 5 That deadline has come and gone, but Plaintiffs have failed to file a Second 6 || Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court converts its dismissal of the First Amended 7 || Complaint into a dismissal of the instant action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 8 Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 9 || complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 10 |/entire action.”). The Court reiterates that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Free Exercise 11 || Clause are dismissed with prejudice, but Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are dismissed without 12 || prejudice. (See ECF No. 27 at 30-31.) The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close the 13 || case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 A , 16 || DATED: June 18, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.