Bryan v. Carlsbad, City of et al

Filing 43

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Amend or Abandon Her Claims. The Court sua sponte extends the deadline for Bryan to seek leave to amend to 4/26/2018. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/4/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATHERINE BRYAN, Case No.: 17cv697-LAB (BLM) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., 15 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO AMEND OR ABANDON HER CLAIMS Defendant. 16 17 On March 20, the Court denied Plaintiff Catherine Bryan’s motion for a 18 preliminary injunction, her motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, and 19 her motion for leave to add party defendants. That same order dismissed some of 20 Bryan’s claims with prejudice, but others without prejudice. It gave her until April 21 5, 2018, to seek leave to amend. Bryan then interlocutorily appealed the denial of 22 her motions. (Docket no. 39.) Her notice of appeal also purports to appeal the 23 Court’s non-final dismissal of her complaint. 24 As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of 25 jurisdiction over the matters appealed. See Natural Resources Defense Council, 26 Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). But a notice 27 of appeal from a plainly unappealable order does not do so. Estate of Conners by 28 Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Griggs v. Provident 1 17cv697-LAB (BLM) 1 Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Where such a defect is clear to 2 the district court, it may disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with 3 the case. See Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966)). 4 An order dismissing some claims with prejudice but contemplating the 5 possibility of further amendment is not final or appealable merely because the 6 plaintiff chooses not to amend. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 7 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997). Bryan has not filed anything suggesting that she 8 intends to stand on her complaint, or that she intends to abandon the claims that 9 were dismissed without prejudice and appeal only those that were dismissed with 10 prejudice. See id.; Lopez v. City of Needles, 95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 In other words, the Court’s order of dismissal is not yet final, and is not 12 appealable. Bryan may, if she wishes, file a notice either electing to stand on her 13 complaint, or abandoning those claims that were dismissed without prejudice, and 14 the Court will dismiss the case. If she does not do so, however, she should 15 continue litigating her claims. 16 In the interest of deciding Bryan’s claims on the merits if possible, the Court 17 sua sponte extends the deadline for Bryan to seek leave to amend, from April 5 to 18 April 26, 2018. If she files a motion for leave to amend, Defendants may file an 19 opposition within 21 calendar days of the date she does so. No reply brief is to 20 be filed without leave. Bryan’s motion must comply with the Court’s previous order. 21 (See Docket no. 38 at 17:28–18:16.) Failure to seek leave to amend within the time 22 permitted may result in this action’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2018 25 26 27 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 28 2 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

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?