Mauzy v. Mauzy
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by the defendant to modify the previous dismissal of the plaintiff's case from without prejudice to with prejudice. The court granted the motion in part, changing the dismissal of the federal claims to with prejudice, but denied the motion regarding the state law claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to modify dismissal of state law claims denied“Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s state law claims is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that when federal claims are dismissed and supplemental jurisdiction is declined, state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice to allow refiling in state court. Citing Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, the court adhered to the standard Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Motion to modify dismissal of federal claims granted“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion in part and changes the dismissal order from without prejudice to with prejudice as to Plaintiff's federal claims.” | agree with court The court relied on the plaintiff's failure to amend the complaint within the allotted time after a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with leave to amend. It cited Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier and Am. W. Door & Trim to support the proposition that failure to amend justifies dismissal with prejudice. It also cited Moser v. Universal Eng’g Corp. to support its authority to modify the prior order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly distinguishes between the federal and state claims. It applies the correct standard for dismissing state claims without prejudice when supplemental jurisdiction is declined. For the federal claims, it correctly identifies that the plaintiff's failure to amend after a 12(b)(6) dismissal with leave to amend warrants dismissal with prejudice. The authorities cited are appropriate and support the conclusions reached.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATT MAUZY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00344-CAB-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. MOTION TO MODIFY DISMISSAL 14 JENNIFER MAUZY, and DOES 1–10, [Doc. No. 11] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 15, 2025, Defendant Jennifer Mauzy filed a motion seeking the Court to 18 modify its previous dismissal of Plaintiff’s case from without prejudice to with prejudice. 19 [Doc. No. 11.] The Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend 20 because it may have been saved by amendment. See Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 21 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend 22 is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by 23 amendment.”). After Plaintiff did not amend by the deadline, Defendant filed a motion to 24 dismiss for failure to prosecute and Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. [Doc. 25 Nos. 8, 9.] The Court subsequently dismissed the case without prejudice. [Doc. No. 10.] 26 Defendant states that she seeks to prevent Plaintiff from “simply refil[ing] this action 27 in state court in order to continue harassing Defendant.” [Doc. No. 11-1 at 4.] Plaintiff, 28 however, very well may choose to re-file in state court. After dismissing Plaintiff’s federal 1 claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 2 ||[Doc. No. 7 at 7.] When a court dismisses all federal claims and declines jurisdiction over 3 || state law claims, the court should dismiss the state law claims without prejudice. See Gini 4 ||v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court did 5 || exactly that. Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s state law claims is DENIED. 6 Regarding Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court dismissed them pursuant to Fed. R. 7 || Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and gave Plaintiff three weeks to amend, which he failed to do. [/d.] The 8 that Plaintiff subsequently filed a voluntary dismissal (well after the deadline to 9 ||amend) is of no effect given that the Court already dismissed his claims on the merits. See 10 || Smith v. Arizona, No. CV-13-00332-PHX-SRB, 2013 WL 11311730, at *3 n.3 (D. Ariz. 11 17, 2013). “A district court may dismiss an action with prejudice when a plaintiff 12 || fails to file an amended complaint within the allotted time period.” Am. W. Door & Trim 13 || v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. CV-15-00153-BRO-SPX, 2015 WL 13048440, at *1 (C.D. 14 || Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (citing Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999)). 15 || Given that Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and he failed to do so, 16 |/the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion in part and changes the dismissal order from 17 || without prejudice to with prejudice as to Plaintiff's federal claims. See Moser v. Universal 18 || Eng’g Corp., 11 F.3d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Changing the terms of a dismissal order 19 || from without prejudice to with prejudice is within the district court’s authority.”). 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 29, 2025 € Zz 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28