West v. City and County of San Francisco
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-02370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
West v. Glide Foundation: Judge Chen closed the case after settlements and earlier dismissal of omitted defendants.
James West and the defendants in the case, including the defendants whose claims were voluntarily dismissed after settlement and the former defendants Glide Foundation and Karen Hanrahan.
What happened
In James West v. Glide Foundation, et al., the plaintiff settled with and voluntarily dismissed his claims against several defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco and all parties that had appeared. The dismissal was entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).\n\nThe court explained that Glide Foundation and Karen Hanrahan were no longer in the case because West did not name them in his operative amended complaint. Although the court had previously entered default against Glide Foundation, it had not entered a default judgment.\n\nJudge Edward M. Chen ruled that the case was closed and removed all future status conferences. The order did not enter a default judgment against Glide Foundation or Karen Hanrahan.
The detailed version
- West v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:21-cv-02370
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 11, 2024
Background
The court issued an order addressing the status of the case. It stated that the case was closed as to all defendants, including Glide Foundation and Karen Hanrahan.
On August 27, 2024, the court entered a stipulated dismissal and order dismissing claims against certain defendants. Under that agreement, James West voluntarily dismissed his claims against Episcopal Community Services; Kathy Treggiari; Jarrell Brown; Emeka Nnebe; Dolores Street Community Services; Saul Hidalgo; Yesenia Lacayo; Steven Reus; the City and County of San Francisco; Cathy Perdue; and all parties that had appeared in the action. The order said the dismissals resulted from a settlement. It also corrected the spellings of Kathy Treggiari and Emeka Nnebe.
The stipulation stated that West was not voluntarily dismissing claims against Glide Foundation or Karen Hanrahan. The court nevertheless explained that those defendants were no longer part of the case because West had omitted them from the Second Amended Complaint, which was the operative complaint. The court relied on the rule that an amended complaint that omits a previously named defendant effectively dismisses that defendant from the action.
Prior Default Against Glide Foundation
West had previously moved for entry of default against Glide Foundation, and the court entered default on December 1, 2021. The court had not entered a default judgment, so Glide Foundation had remained part of the case until the court determined that West's later amended complaint effectively dismissed the claims against it.
On September 11, 2024, West filed a status report stating that he expected to file a motion for default judgment against Glide Foundation and Karen Hanrahan within 60 to 90 days. The court stated that this request came too late.
Ruling
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the case was closed. The court removed all future status conferences. The order did not grant a default judgment against Glide Foundation or Karen Hanrahan and did not describe the dismissals as with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.