Xianhua v. Oath Holdings, Inc. f/k/a/Yahoo! Inc., et al

Filing 73

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/12/2022. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NING XIANHUA,

7

Case No. 20-cv-06185-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
OATH HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On March 31, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and gave Plaintiff leave to

13
14

amend within 21 days. Dkt. No. 70 at 8. Plaintiff indicates he will not amend the complaint, and

15

seeks to appeal the Court’s dismissal order. Dkt. No. 72.

16
17
18

“If a plaintiff has been given leave to amend its complaint, a further district court
determination constituting final judgment must be obtained before an appeal may be brought.”
United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1110 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted)

19
20
21

(simplified); Baldwin v. Sebelius, 654 F.3d 877, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] plaintiff who has been
given leave to amend may not file a notice of appeal before entry of a final judgment even when

22

he elects to stand on an unamended pleading[.]”). “[A] plaintiff may obtain an appealable final

23

judgment by ‘fil[ing] in writing a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint.’” Edwards v.

24

Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

25

//

26
//
27
28

//

1

In light of Plaintiff’s notice of intent not to amend, the Court DISMISSES this action with

2

prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Both

3

parties shall bear their own costs of suit.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/12/2022

7
8

________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2