Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ADRIENNE THOMAS, Case No. 23-cv-00065-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL ? □ Re: Dkt. No. 27 COMPANY, Defendant.

E 13 On September 5, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, with leave to 14 amend by September 29, 2023. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not filed an amended 3 15 || complaint. Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, citing Farr v. Pacific 16 Gas & Electric Co., No. 21-cv-8099-JSW, 2022 WL 2468461 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2022). (See Dkt. i 17 || No. 28.) The plaintiff in the Farr case was represented by counsel, and when the Court considers Z 18 || the relevant factors, it concludes the less drastic sanction of dismissal without prejudice is 19 warranted in this case. See Yourish vy. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to comply with 21 the deadline set by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk shall close this file. 23 Dated: October 5, 2023 / | / □ 24 Lt 2 4 W JEPFREY/S/ WHIT 25 Unjted spt Distt Judge 26 27 28