Mauzy v. Mauzy

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MATT MAUZY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00344-CAB-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART v. MOTION TO MODIFY DISMISSAL JENNIFER MAUZY, and DOES 1–10, [Doc. No. 11] 15 Defendants.

17 On July 15, 2025, Defendant Jennifer Mauzy filed a motion seeking the Court to modify its previous dismissal of Plaintiff’s case from without prejudice to with prejudice.

19 [Doc. No. 11.] The Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend because it may have been saved by amendment. See Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.”). After Plaintiff did not amend by the deadline, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. [Doc.

25 Nos. 8, 9.] The Court subsequently dismissed the case without prejudice. [Doc. No. 10.]

26 Defendant states that she seeks to prevent Plaintiff from “simply refil[ing] this action in state court in order to continue harassing Defendant.” [Doc. No. 11-1 at 4.] Plaintiff, however, very well may choose to re-file in state court. After dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

2 ||[Doc. No. 7 at 7.] When a court dismisses all federal claims and declines jurisdiction over || state law claims, the court should dismiss the state law claims without prejudice. See Gini ||v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court did || exactly that. Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s state law claims is DENIED.

6 Regarding Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court dismissed them pursuant to Fed. R. || Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and gave Plaintiff three weeks to amend, which he failed to do. [/d.] The 8 that Plaintiff subsequently filed a voluntary dismissal (well after the deadline to ||amend) is of no effect given that the Court already dismissed his claims on the merits. See || Smith v. Arizona, No. CV-13-00332-PHX-SRB, 2013 WL 11311730, at *3 n.3 (D. Ariz. 11 17, 2013). “A district court may dismiss an action with prejudice when a plaintiff || fails to file an amended complaint within the allotted time period.” Am. W. Door & Trim || v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. CV-15-00153-BRO-SPX, 2015 WL 13048440, at *1 (C.D.

14 || Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (citing Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999)).

15 || Given that Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and he failed to do so, |/the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion in part and changes the dismissal order from || without prejudice to with prejudice as to Plaintiff's federal claims. See Moser v. Universal || Eng’g Corp., 11 F.3d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Changing the terms of a dismissal order || from without prejudice to with prejudice is within the district court’s authority.”).

20 It is SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: July 29, 2025 € Zz Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge