Perry v. Cashcall, Inc. et al
Filing
97
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF UNTIL JULY 7, 2014 TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING REASSIGNMENT. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/16/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
EDGAR PERRY,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 13-02369 LB
Plaintiff,
v.
13
CASHCALL, INC., et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT, ALLOWING
PLAINTIFF UNTIL JULY 7, 2014 TO
FILE A THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND DENYING
REASSIGNMENT
[Re: ECF Nos. 86, 91, 92, 95]
_____________________________________/
17
18
The court granted Mr. Perry leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by April 7, 2014 to re-
19
allege his breach of contract claim against CashCall. Amended 3/17/2014 Order, ECF No. 86.1 On
20
March 28, 2014, Mr. Perry appealed the court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
21
Ninth Circuit. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 87. But on May 21, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel
22
dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order he challenged (the court’s Amended
23
3/17/2014 Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss) is not final or appealable. Order of
24
USCA, ECF No. 91.2
25
26
27
28
1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
2
This is because an order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or
judgment is entered in compliance with Rule 54, see Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640
C 13-02369 LB
ORDER
1
In light of Mr. Perry’s appeal and the Ninth Circuit’s order, and to clarify the required next steps,
2
the court provided Mr. Perry until June 9, 2014 to file a Second Amended Complaint to re-allege his
3
breach of contract claim against CashCall. See Order, ECF No. 92. Mr. Perry failed to meet this
4
deadline and filed his Second Amended Complaint on June 11, 2014. See generally, Docket;
5
Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 95. In addition, Mr. Perry failed to limit the Second
6
Amended Complaint to the breach of contract claim against CashCall. Id. Rather, Mr. Perry filed a
7
Second Amended Complaint against all four defendants, asserting claims that were previously
8
dismissed by the court with prejudice. Id.
9
Mr. Perry also requests that this case be reassigned to a District Court Judge. However, Mr.
(Plaintiff), ECF No. 9; Consent (CashCall), ECF No. 13. As such, the Court DENIES Mr. Perry’s
12
For the Northern District of California
Perry has already consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction. See Motion, ECF No. 94; Consent
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
request for reassignment.
13
Because Mr. Perry is a pro se litigant, the court will provide him with one more opportunity to
14
file an amended complaint that complies with the court’s March 17, 2014 order. Mr. Perry has until
15
July 7, 2014 to file a Third Amended Complaint. In that Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Perry may
16
only re-allege his breach of contract claim against CashCall. He may not reallege the claims he
17
brought against the State of California, First Bank, and PFSA, or his TILA claim against CashCall,
18
because the court already dismissed those claims with prejudice. Should Mr. Perry fail to file a
19
Third Amended Complaint timely and in compliance with the above-mentioned directions, the court
20
may dismiss his action for failing to prosecute it.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981), and the court’s Amended 3/17/2014 Order dismissed Mr. Perry’s
breach of contract claim against CashCall without prejudice and allowed him to file a Second
Amended Complaint to re-allege this claim, see WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136
(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (dismissal of complaint with leave to amend is not appealable).
C 13-02369 LB
ORDER
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?