Ortega v. Santomassimo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court previously dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because it was signed by a non-attorney next friend rather than the plaintiff, and warned that failure to file a signed amended complaint by a specific deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice. The court ordered the action dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to file a signed amended complaint within the allotted time.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action with prejudice“Because more than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff, himself, has not signed and filed an amended complaint, the Court DISMISSES the action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order.” | agree with court The court had previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline and an explicit warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiff failed to file a signed amended complaint by the deadline. Dismissing with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and lack of prosecution is a standard and appropriate exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce its orders. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural history: the initial dismissal was without prejudice but included a strict deadline and warning. The plaintiff's failure to meet that deadline triggered the stated consequence. The cited authorities support the conversion of the dismissal to one with prejudice. The reasoning is direct and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIM EDWARD ORTEGA, Case No.: 22cv1795-GPC(DDL)
12 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF 13 v. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 14 MICHAEL P. SANTOMASSIMO; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 16, 2022, Barbara-Susan, as next friend to Plaintiff Tim Edward 18 Ortega, signed and filed a “petition for declaratory judgment and record.” (Dkt. No. 1.) 19 Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. (See id.) Because a non-attorney has no authority to 20 appear as an attorney for others, even with a power of attorney, on January 23, 2023, the 21 Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint signed 22 by Plaintiff on or before February 17, 2023. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Court warned that if an 23 amended complaint is not filed by the deadline, the Court will dismiss the action with 24 prejudice. (Id.) Because more than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff, himself, has not 25 signed and filed an amended complaint, the Court DISMISSES the action with prejudice 26 27 28 1 || for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order.! See Lynch v. City of 2 || Alhambra, 880 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 1989) (following dismissal without prejudice of 3 complaint, the plaintiff's failure to cure the deficiencies of the complaint within the 4 || period provided by the district court converted the dismissal into a final, appealable with- 5 || prejudice dismissal); Ferguson v. Pagati, No. CV 12—00653—VBF-DTB, 2013 WL 6 3989426, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2013) (“If plaintiff fails timely to file a second 7 amended complaint, the dismissal will be converted to a with-prejudice dismissal due to 8 of prosecution and failure to comply with court order.”). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: March 23, 2023 (2. (0 1] Hon. Gonzalo P. Curtel 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 cc: 16 Tim Edward Ortega 17 || 11718 SE Federal Highway, #435 18 || Hobe Sound, FL 33455 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The Court notes that Barbara-Susan has attempted to make two filings entitled “Petition for 27 Declaratory Judgment and Record” and “Petition to Preserve Evidence” which have been rejected by 28 discrepancy orders because she is not a party to the case and the filings are missing the signature of Plaintiff Tim Ortega. (See Dkt. Nos. 20, 23.)