Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ADRIENNE THOMAS, Case No. 23-cv-00065-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL ? □ Re: Dkt. No. 27 10 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.

E 13 On September 5, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, with leave to || amend by September 29, 2023. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not filed an amended 15 || complaint. Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, citing Farr v. Pacific || 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 || 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 || the deadline set by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk shall close this file.

22 IT ISSO ORDERED.

23 Dated: October 5, 2023 / | / □ 24 Lt 2 4 W JEPFREY/S/ WHIT 25 Unjted spt Distt Judge