Finnegan v. Legal Shield
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint within the 45-day deadline set by a prior order that dismissed the initial complaint as frivolous. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, and ordered the case file closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline and warned of dismissal for failure to comply. The plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint within the 45-day period. Dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim (under the IFP statute) is a standard and appropriate sanction for non-compliance with a court order to amend. |
Order to close the case file“As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.” | agree with court Since the action was dismissed and no further proceedings are pending, closing the file is the correct administrative step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on a prior order that explicitly set a deadline and the consequences of missing it. The court correctly applied the failure to prosecute standard and the IFP dismissal statute. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on non-compliance with a prior order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN; Case No.: 21-CV-773 JLS (KSC) FINNEGAN LLC; and LIQUID EVENTS 12 WORLDWIDE LLC, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR Plaintiffs, FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM 14 v. UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 15 GRANTED PURSUANT TO LEGAL SHIELD, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND 16 Defendant. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IN 17 COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT 18 19 On April 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff Sean Matthew Finnegan’s application 20 to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Plaintiffs Sean Matthew Finnegan, Finnegan 21 LLC, and Liquid Events Worldwide LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Complaint as 22 frivolous due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See 23 generally ECF No. 4 (“Order”). In so doing, the Court granted Plaintiffs forty-five days in 24 which to file an amended complaint. See id. at 6. The Order clearly stated that, “should 25 Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within forty-five (45) days, the Court will enter 26 a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim 27 upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and their failure to 28 prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment.” Id. (citing Lira v. 1 || Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)) (emphasis in original). Although more than 2 || forty-five days have passed since the issuance of the Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an 3 |}amended complaint in accordance with the Order. 4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 5 || As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the 6 || file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. g ||Dated: June 10, 2021 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28