Baker v. Brachfield & Associates

Filing 4

ORDER of DISMISSAL without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/26/10.(lao) (jcj).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 10, 2010, Plaintiff through counsel filed her complaint in this action, alleging simply that Defendant had called her and hung up without saying anything or leaving a message. The complaint concluded Defendant was a debt collector attempting to collect a debt, and cited the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as the basis for the claim. The complaint referred to two exhibits by way of further explanation, but neither of these were attached. The Court then issued an order observing the complaint did not appear to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and left the Court's jurisdiction unclear. The order required Plaintiff to either file a memorandum explaining why the complaint did comply with Rule 8(a), or amend the complaint to correct the defects the order identified. Plaintiff was ordered to do this no later than March 25, 2010, and she was cautioned that if she did not do so by that date, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. BRACHFIELD & ASSOCIATES, Defendant. CHRISTIE BAKER, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 10CV0515-LAB (JMA) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

10CV0515

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Since that time, Plaintiff has not filed anything and the Court's jurisdiction is therefore as unclear as before. Until the Court's jurisdiction is confirmed, it cannot proceed. United States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009). For this reason, and because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and the Court's previous order, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 26, 2010

HO N O R AB LE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge

-2-

10CV0515