Jack R. Finnegan v. Rutan Tucker LLP

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01824
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 J S - 6 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JACK R. FINNEGAN, Case No. 8:25-01824 JVS (ADS) i 12 Plaintiff, c

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF CAPACITY, FAILURE TO 14 RUTAN TUCKER LLP, et al., PROSECUTE Defendants. 15 16 17 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff Jack Finnegan filed a Complaint, which is devoid of 18 relevant factual allegations and asserts forty-seven causes of action against defendants 19 Rutan Tucker LLP and the City of Dana Point. (Dkt. No. 1.) On September 5, 2025, the 20 Court issued an Order re Lack of Capacity. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Order found that Plaintiff 21 lacks the capacity to commence or continue any litigation and that only Plaintiff’s 22 23 24 1 Conservator, Peter Kote, may do so on Plaintiff’s behalf.1 (Id. at 1.) The Order requires 2 Plaintiff’s conservator to file a motion to substitute as conservator acting on Plaintiff’s 3 behalf by September 12, 2025, if he intends to pursue the case. (Id. at 3.) The Order 4 states that if no motion to substitute is filed by that deadline, the action may be 5 dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) As of the date of this order, no motion to substitute

6 has been filed by Mr. Kote, and the deadline to do so has passed. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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- 20 PR-CE-CJC). (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) In addition, the Court took judicial notice of this Court’s own dockets, which 21 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 22 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); 23 Finnegan v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc., No. 8:25- cv-01579-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2025). (Dkt. No. 5 at 2.) 24 1 The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot proceed in this action without his 2 ||conservator. Plaintiff's conservator has not substituted in or otherwise prosecuted this 3 ||case. Therefore, the action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of capacity and/or 4 || failure to prosecute. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 22, 2025 () | Ne 8 Ze me Uv dt

United States District Judge 10 11 || Presented by: 12 ____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth __ 13 || THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 4 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24