Arroyo v. Davi, LLC

Opinion

RAFAEL ARROYO, No. 2:21-cv-00273-MCE-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER DAVI, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant.

On January 27, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Davi, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1 and Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) was given twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint. See ECF No. 16 at 9 (“If no amended complaint is timely filed, the causes of action dismissed by virtue of this Memorandum and Order will be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties.”). Plaintiff timely informed the Court on February 16, 2022, “that he does not intend to file an amended Complaint and will instead stand on his pleadings.” ECF No. 18 at 1. “When the plaintiff timely responds with a formal notice of his intent not to amend, the threatened dismissal merely ripens into a final, appealable judgment.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating

1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. that upon the filing of a notice of intent not to amend, a district court should “take[] the election not to amend at face value, enter[] a final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice, and allow[] the case to come. . . on appeal in that posture.”). Accordingly, this entire action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).2, The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. IT |S SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2022 Co { lots rf LEK "0 MENTOR UNITED STATES: DISTRICT JUDGE ? Because Plaintiff timely filed a notice of intent not to amend, dismissal is not warranted under Rule 41(b). See Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1064 (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court's ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).