Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 ZACHARY SILBERSHER, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01496-JD Plaintiffs, V. ORDER DISMISSING CASE ° VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS 10 INTERNATIONAL, INC, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 On May 11, 2020, the Court dismissed the corrected first amended complaint (““CFAC”) || with leave to amend by June 15, 2020. Dkt. No. 109 at 18. The Court expressly stated that failure 15 || to meet this deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil || Procedure 41(b). Jd. Silbersher did not amend the complaint, and filed a notice of appeal on 17 || June 9, 2020. Dkt. No. 110. He did not file a formal notice electing to stand on the complaint and || appeal, but left messages to that effect with the Court’s deputy on voicemail and email.

19 A good argument can be made that Silbersher did not adequately respond to the Court’s 20 order setting a deadline to amend, and that the case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b). See 21 Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Ndigwe v. Allstate Indem. Co., 22 710 Fed. App’x 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Even so, he made some effort, albeit || an incomplete one, to advise the Court of his election, and so the case is dismissed with prejudice || under Rule 12(b)(6).

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: July 2, 2020 28 JA) ONATO Unitgf States District Judge