Balanzar v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the case after granting a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, noting that plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint or seek an extension within the deadline. The court ordered the dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend and directed the entry of final judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and their failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the case due to the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute. The order recites that the plaintiffs were given leave to amend by a prior order (ECF No. 19) with a specific deadline (March 1, 2023). The plaintiffs neither filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or indicate an intent not to do so justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). The dismissal without further leave is appropriate given the prior opportunity to amend and the subsequent inaction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the specific prior order granting leave to amend, establishes the deadline, notes the plaintiffs' inaction (failure to file or seek extension), and applies the correct legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards v. Marin Park) to justify dismissal under Rule 41(b). The reasoning directly addresses the motion/status of the case with the appropriate authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMIR BALANZAR and CECELIA Case No.: 22-cv-1372-GPC LAHR, individually and on behalf of 12 others similarly situated, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE Plaintiffs, A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO 14 v. PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 15 WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, AMENDMENT 16 LLC, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On February 3, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 20 complaint and permitted Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint no later than March 1, 21 2023. ECF No. 19. Nearly four months have passed since the Court’s dismissal order and 22 three months have passed since Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was due. To date, 23 Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to file 24 one. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of 25 the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the 26 complaint or indicating to the court that [they] will not do so—is properly met with the 27 1 || sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil 2 || action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiffs’ failure to state a 3 claim upon which relief can be granted and their failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal 4 || Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter final 5 judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: May 30, 2023 2 8 Hon. athe Cae 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-cv-1372-GPC