Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services

S.D. California

Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services

DecidedMarch 2, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-01539

StatusUnknown

This text of Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services (Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTINA RAINES and DARRICK Case No.: 19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB FIGG, individually and on behalf of all 12 others similarly situated, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL 16 GROUP, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an order dismissing 20 the fourth cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. 21 On January 25, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 22 Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 114.) The Court dismissed Counts One, 23 Two, and Three with prejudice and dismissed Count Four without prejudice, granting 24 Plaintiffs fourteen (14) days’ leave to amend. The time for Plaintiffs to file a Fourth 25 Amended Complaint has since expired. 26 On February 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the present application, stating they do not 27 elect to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, but rather intend to appeal the Court’s dismissal 28 of the TAC. (ECF No. 115.) 1 In the Ninth Circuit, an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a 2 order for purposes of appeal. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, □□□□□□□ 3 || (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). “Unless a plaintiff files in writing a notice of intent not to file 4 ||an amended complaint, [a dismissal order with leave to amend] is not an appealable final 5 ||decision.” Lopez v. City of Needles, 95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the filing of 6 ||such a notice of intent “gives the district court an opportunity to... to enter an order 7 dismissing the action, one that is clearly appealable.” Jd. Plaintiffs request the Court 8 ||dismiss Count Four with prejudice to permit an appeal. (ECF No. 115 at 2.) 9 Accordingly, Plaintiffs having submitted written notice of their intent not to file an 10 ||amended complaint and request for dismissal, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request and 11 || DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action in the TAC with prejudice, pursuant to the 12 reasoning in the January 25, 2021 Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 ||Dated: March 2, 2021 □ gf, p 16 4 Yn: 7 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTINA RAINES and DARRICK Case No.: 19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB FIGG, individually and on behalf of all 12 others similarly situated, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL 16 GROUP, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an order dismissing 20 the fourth cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. 21 On January 25, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 22 Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 114.) The Court dismissed Counts One, 23 Two, and Three with prejudice and dismissed Count Four without prejudice, granting 24 Plaintiffs fourteen (14) days’ leave to amend. The time for Plaintiffs to file a Fourth 25 Amended Complaint has since expired. 26 On February 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the present application, stating they do not 27 elect to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, but rather intend to appeal the Court’s dismissal 28 of the TAC. (ECF No. 115.) 1 In the Ninth Circuit, an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a 2 order for purposes of appeal. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, □□□□□□□ 3 || (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). “Unless a plaintiff files in writing a notice of intent not to file 4 ||an amended complaint, [a dismissal order with leave to amend] is not an appealable final 5 ||decision.” Lopez v. City of Needles, 95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the filing of 6 ||such a notice of intent “gives the district court an opportunity to... to enter an order 7 dismissing the action, one that is clearly appealable.” Jd. Plaintiffs request the Court 8 ||dismiss Count Four with prejudice to permit an appeal. (ECF No. 115 at 2.) 9 Accordingly, Plaintiffs having submitted written notice of their intent not to file an 10 ||amended complaint and request for dismissal, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request and 11 || DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action in the TAC with prejudice, pursuant to the 12 reasoning in the January 25, 2021 Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 ||Dated: March 2, 2021 □ gf, p 16 4 Yn: 7 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raines-v-front-porch-communities-and-services-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack