Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04339/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04339-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-07-04339 CONFIRMATION OF DISMISSAL Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALKI MORTGAGE CO., ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-4339 JL

ORDER

Procedural Background

Plaintiff John Brosnan filed his complaint in this action on August 22, 2007.

Defendant ALKI Mortgage filed its Answer on October 30, 2007 and a motion to dismiss on

December 4. Both parties consented to this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Civil Local Rule 73. 

The Court dismissed the case with leave to amend on February 13, 2008, holding

that Plaintiff had failed to allege damages sufficient to create standing to sue pursuant to

the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003,

("CAN-SPAM Act” or "Act"), 15 U.S.C.A. §§7701-07. 

On March 24, 2008, this case was dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

file an amended complaint within thirty days of this Court’s dismissal with leave to amend,

issued February 13. His amended complaint was due March 14. 

Case 3:07-cv-04339-JL Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-07-04339 CONFIRMATION OF DISMISSAL Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff’s communication with the Court

Shortly after this Court issued its dismissal in this case, it received a communication

from Plaintiff that he had indeed filed an amended complaint, but that problems with the

Electronic Court Filing (“ECF”) system had delayed its being docketed. Accordingly, the

Court examined Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed March 17, and 20, 2008. 

Ruling with respect to proposed amended complaint

The Court finds that the Amended Complaint, in addition to being untimely, does not

satisfy the provisions of the Court’s previous order of dismissal with leave to amend. The

Court had ordered that “Plaintiff must plead specific significant adverse effects suffered by

his ISP as a result of Defendant's alleged spam to satisfy the standing requirement and

bring suit under the Act.“ The clear meaning of that order was that in order to establish

standing to sue, Plaintiff must plead the significant adverse effects suffered by Plaintiff’s

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) as a result of Defendant ALKI Mortgage’s alleged spam.

Instead, Plaintiff amended his complaint by adding 55 new defendants. Furthermore,

Plaintiff fails to allege any specific adverse effects his ISP has suffered due to alleged spam

by ALKI Mortgage, as required by this Court’s previous order. Nor does he allege any

specific adverse effects his ISP has suffered due to alleged spam sent by the 55 new

defendants he attempts to add to his complaint.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff fails to comply with this Court’s order of dismissal with leave to amend. His

amended complaint fails to state specific adverse effects alleged to be caused to Plaintiff’s

ISP by ALKI Mortgage’s alleged spam, or by the alleged spam sent by the 55 new

defendants he attempts to add. Plaintiff attempts to add these defendants to his complaint,

without leave of court, in violation of Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since

Defendant ALKI Mortgage has filed two responsive pleadings, Plaintiff is not entitled to

amend his complaint as a matter of right, but may do so only with leave of Court. This

Court granted leave to amend, but solely to establish Plaintiff’s standing to sue, not to add

55 new defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-04339-JL Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-07-04339 CONFIRMATION OF DISMISSAL Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, this Court’s previous dismissal remains in effect. Plaintiff shall take

nothing by his complaint. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2008 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIVIL\07-4339\Close case.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-04339-JL Document 26 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3