Bloch v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 10/4/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/8/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARILYN BLOCH,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

FACEBOOK INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:17-cv-03803-KAW
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 6

Defendant.

12
13

On August 7, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Marilyn Bloch’s complaint with leave to

14

amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint no later than

15

August 31, 2017. Id. at 2.

16

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff is, therefore, ordered to file

17

her amended complaint on or before October 4, 2017, and respond to this order to show cause by

18

explaining why she did not timely file an amended complaint and why this case should not be

19

dismissed for failure to prosecute. The first amended complaint and the response to the order to

20

show cause should be filed separately. Failure to file both documents by the deadline may result

21

in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

22

In amending her complaint, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to

23

assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se

24

litigants, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also wish to

25

make an appointment with the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se

26

litigants—by calling [phone]. The Help Desk does make phone appointments, so Plaintiff

27

being out-of-state does not prevent her from using this service. While the Help Desk will not

28

represent her, a licensed attorney may assist Plaintiff in determining whether she has a viable

1

claim against Facebook. If no viable claim exists, Plaintiff should file a voluntary dismissal in

2

lieu of an amended complaint, also by September 29, 2017.

3

Plaintiff should be aware that an amended complaint will supersede or replace the original

4

complaint, and the original complaint will thereafter be treated as nonexistent. Armstrong v. Davis,

5

275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S.

6

499 (2005). The first amended complaint must, therefore, be complete, in itself, without reference

7

to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint

8

which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

9

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Additionally, the October 3, 2017 case management conference is continued to December
5, 2017. Case management conference statements are due on or before November 28, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2