Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 RONALD CUPP, Case No. 24-cv-00833-JD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER RE EARLY WARNING 6 v. SERVICES, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS 7 LEXISNEXIS SOLUTIONS, et al., g Defendants. 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Ronald Cupp has sued several consumer reporting agencies that are said to 11 || have reported inaccurate information about a bankruptcy proceeding involving him. See generally 12 Dkt. No. 1. On April 29, 2024, Early Warning Services, LLC (EWS) moved to dismiss the 13 || complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which 14 || relief can be granted. See Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff Cupp’s opposition was due by May 13, 2024, but 15 || he did not file one. Despite filing two case-management statements in the time since, Dkt. Nos. a 16 || 46-47, Cupp has still yet to respond to the motion. “To be sure, [Cupp] gets some leeway as a pro 3 17 se litigant,” Harrison v. City of Salinas, No. 23-cv-903-JD, 2024 WL 1024739, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 18 || Mar. 7, 2024), but the record supportably shows that (1) the day after EWS’s motion, Cupp 19 || properly opposed a different defendant’s motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 39; and (2) Cupp’s case- 20 || management statement, filed after the deadline for his opposition, explicitly acknowledged EWS’s 21 || pending motion, see Dkt. No. 47 at 3. 22 Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to EWS pursuant to Federal 23 || Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February 26, 2025 26 27 JAM ONATO 28 Unit@# States District Judge