Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Martin v. Patel, 17-CV-916-JLS (WVG). (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20191008u75 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . On March 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendant J. Cunningham's, Defendant A. Malcolm's and Defendant R. Patel's respective unopposed motions to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Lance Martin's Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 74. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days, noting that "[f]ailure to file within the time allotted may result in the dismissal of this action in i
More

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On March 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendant J. Cunningham's, Defendant A. Malcolm's and Defendant R. Patel's respective unopposed motions to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Lance Martin's Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 74. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days, noting that "[f]ailure to file within the time allotted may result in the dismissal of this action in its entirety." Id. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or filed for an extension of time. 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. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) ("If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action."). The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer