Mark Glinoga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sullivan Entertainment Inc., Sullivan Home Entertainment Limited, Sullivan Entertainment International
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Malcolm F. Marsh (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the case after the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in a prior order granting leave to amend. The court dismissed the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a district court may convert a dismissal with leave to amend into a dismissal of the entire action when the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or request an extension within the specified time. The order recites that the deadline was November 21, 2025, and it is now March 24, 2026, with no amended complaint or extension request filed. This satisfies the requirements for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and the cited Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly states the prior deadline, the plaintiff's failure to act, and the legal basis for dismissal. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority supporting the conversion of a dismissal with leave to amend into a dismissal of the entire action for failure to prosecute. The reasoning directly answers the procedural posture of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK GLINOGA, on behalf of himself Case No.: 25CV0707-GPC(SBC) and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT v. MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR 14 FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC., 15 COMPLIANCE WITH COURT SULLIVAN HOME ENTERTAINMENT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT 16 LIMITED, SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL 17 INC., AND SULLIVAN 18 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., 19 Defendants. 20 21 On October 30, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of 22 subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to allege he suffered a concrete harm to 23 support Article III standing. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend 24 the complaint by November 21, 2025. (Id.) 25 “If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a 26 district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire 27 action.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Yourish v. Cal. 28 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a district court that had granted 1 || leave to amend the complaint did not abuse its discretion by dismissing entire action 2 || when plaintiff failed to replace a defective complaint)). 3 It has been over four months since the deadline of November 21, 2025 to file an 4 ||amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he requested 5 extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil 6 || action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on lack of subject matter 7 || jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 ||41(b). See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of 9 || the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the 10 |}complaint or indicating to the court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the 11 sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter 12 || final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: March 24, 2026 =< 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28