Jack R. Finnegan v. Rutan Tucker LLP

Opinion

J S - 6

JACK R. FINNEGAN, Case No. 8:25-01824 JVS (ADS) i Plaintiff, c

v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF CAPACITY, FAILURE TO RUTAN TUCKER LLP, et al., PROSECUTE Defendants. On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff Jack Finnegan filed a Complaint, which is devoid of relevant factual allegations and asserts forty-seven causes of action against defendants Rutan Tucker LLP and the City of Dana Point. (Dkt. No. 1.) On September 5, 2025, the Court issued an Order re Lack of Capacity. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Order found that Plaintiff lacks the capacity to commence or continue any litigation and that only Plaintiff’s Conservator, Peter Kote, may do so on Plaintiff’s behalf.1 (Id. at 1.) The Order requires Plaintiff’s conservator to file a motion to substitute as conservator acting on Plaintiff’s behalf by September 12, 2025, if he intends to pursue the case. (Id. at 3.) The Order states that if no motion to substitute is filed by that deadline, the action may be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) As of the date of this order, no motion to substitute

has been filed by Mr. Kote, and the deadline to do so has passed.

1 In making this finding, the Court took judicial notice of records filed in this Court and the Orange County Superior Court. Courts may take judicial notice of documents and facts not subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201; Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011). A federal court “may take judicial notice of…documents on file in federal or state courts.” Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012). Specifically, the Court took judicial notice that on January 15, 2020, the Orange County Superior Court issued an Order Appointing Conservator of Estate, finding that Plaintiff “lacks the capacity to commence or continue any litigation, lawsuit, or other legal proceeding”. Finnegan v. United States, No. 8:21-cv-1845 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022), Dkt. 22-2 at 10 (Orange County Superior Court order in case no 2019-01047364- PR-CE-CJC). (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) In addition, the Court took judicial notice of this Court’s own dockets, which show that between July 15 and August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed 12 new civil cases in this Court. In two of the cases, Mr. Kote moved to substitute as the real party in interest for Plaintiff and dismiss the cases without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Finnegan v. Kote, No. 8:25- cv-01542-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2025); Finnegan v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc., No. 8:25- cv-01579-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2025). (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot proceed in this action without his conservator. Plaintiff's conservator has not substituted in or otherwise prosecuted this case. Therefore, the action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of capacity and/or failure to prosecute. Dated: September 22, 2025 () | Ne Ze me Uv dt

United States District Judge Presented by: ____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth __ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge