1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAAVON COX, Case No. 21-cv-05386-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASES 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 38

10 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 DAAVON COX, Case No. 21-cv-05388-HSG 13 Plaintiff, Re: Dkt. No. 37 14 v.

15 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., 16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff Daavon Cox initially filed these actions pro se in Alameda Superior Court. 19 Plaintiff brough the first case, Cox v. Ford Motor Company, 21-cv-05386-HSG (“Cox I”), against 20 Defendants Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn, the former Vice President of Global 21 Design for General Motors. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1, n.1. Plaintiff brought the second case, Cox v. 22 Ford Motor Company, 21-cv-05388-HSG (“Cox II”), against Defendants Ford Motor Company 23 and Edward Welburn. He also listed Elon Musk as an agent or employee of Defendants. See Cox 24 II, Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A at 8. On April 28, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motions to dismiss the claims in both cases. In the order, the Court gave Plaintiff until 25 May 27, 2022, to amend the complaints to address the deficiencies that the Court identified. The 26 Court further cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline may result in the 27 1 the complaints in Cox I or Cox II. The Court therefore issued an order to show cause why the 2 cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Cox I, Dkt. No. 37; Cox H, Dkt. No. 3 35. 4 Plaintiff filed late responses to the orders to show cause. See Cox I, Dkt. No. 38; Cox IT, 5 Dkt. No. 37. Critically, however, these responses do not explain why Plaintiff failed to file an 6 || amended complaint by the May 27 deadline, or how he could address the deficiencies the Court 7 identified if given more time to amend. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed any g amended complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiff's responses confirm that further leave to amend 9 would be futile. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“Leave to amend 10 should be granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts, i and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) (quotations omitted); see also Brazil v.

2 United States Dep’t of Navy,

, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a pro se litigant . . . may 5 B be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless 4 must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.”). The Court therefore DISMISSES both actions without leave to amend. Z 6 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants in Cox I and Cox IT and to close the cases. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Z 18 Dated: 8/17/2022

20 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28