Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01529/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01529-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bella Brands, LLC
Plaintiff
Bidart Bros.
Defendant
Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS, INC., a 

California corporation; and BELLA 

BRANDS, LLC, a California limited 

liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIDART BROS., a California corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

1:14-cv-01529-AWI-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING THE 

ACTION AND CLOSING THE 

CASE

On April 2, 2014, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed and the case closed for failure to comply with this Court’s December 17, 2014 order 

and for failure to prosecute. On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff responded by directing this Court to the 

language of its December 17, 2014 order: “[a]ny amended complaint must be filed within 60 

days....” Doc. 17 at 19. Plaintiff correctly notes that this language did not require the filing of an 

amended complaint. However, because all of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed for lack of 

standing or failure to state a claim, Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint effectively 

terminates this action.

Case 1:14-cv-01529-AWI-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Because there are no remaining claims before this Court and Plaintiff failed to file an 

amended complaint within the time provided for amendment, and because Plaintiff has failed to 

prosecute this action, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.1Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see

Doc. 22.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed with prejudice;

2. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

This order terminates this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action were dismissed for lack of standing. Despite that determination, no part 

of this order precludes a party or parties with standing from bringing suit based on the Plant Variety Protection Act.

Case 1:14-cv-01529-AWI-BAM Document 24 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2