Ross v. Padres LP
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court was presented with a situation where the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline set by a previous order. The court ordered the dismissal of the action in its entirety without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action in its entirety without prejudice“Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2019 Order.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record. The plaintiff was given leave to amend with a specific deadline and a warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. The plaintiff neither amended nor sought an extension. Under Rule 41(b) and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court has discretion to dismiss the entire action when a plaintiff fails to cure a deficient complaint after being given the opportunity to do so. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural history (the March 28, 2019 order granting leave to amend with a deadline), the plaintiff's inaction, and the applicable legal standard (Rule 41(b) and Ninth Circuit case law). The citation to Lira v. Herrera directly supports the conversion of a dismissal of the complaint to a dismissal of the action. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VAN J. ROSS, Case No.: 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 PADRES LP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendants Padres, L.P., Christina Hall, and 19 Ian Graham’s unopposed motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Van J. Ross’ First 20 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 39. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 21 complaint within thirty days, noting that “[f]ailure to file within the time allotted may result 22 in the dismissal of this action in its entirety.” Id. Plaintiff has not filed an amended 23 complaint or filed for an extension of time. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its 25 entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2019 26 Order. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not 27 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 28 /// 1 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). The Clerk of Court 2 || SHALL CLOSE the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 3, 2019 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28