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)

Download PDF
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: 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 (415) 782-8982. 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

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?