Smith v. Superior Court of California County of Alameda
- Kang
- 3:24-cv-01981
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andrea Smith v. Superior Court, Judge Kang ordered Smith to respond by November 7, 2025, or face a recommendation to dismiss for noncompliance.
Andrea Smith, whose lawsuit remains subject to possible dismissal if she does not meet the November 7, 2025 deadline or otherwise respond as directed.
What happened
Andrea Smith v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, et al. concerns Smith’s failure to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed her original complaint without prejudice and allowed her to correct its problems. Smith is representing herself.
The court said the deadline passed without an amended complaint or a request for more time. A mailing problem initially sent the earlier order to an incorrect address, but the Clerk later mailed it to Smith’s correct address, and there was no indication that second mailing was returned.
Judge Peter H. Kang ordered Smith to file an amended complaint, request a reasonable extension, or explain why the case should not be dismissed by November 7, 2025. If she does not respond in one of those ways, the court will issue a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Superior Court of California County of Alameda · No. 3:24-cv-01981
- Kang
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Andrea Smith filed this action while representing herself and submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened her complaint as required for such cases.
On June 30, 2025, the court dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice because it found the complaint frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, and sought money from individuals or entities protected from that type of claim by immunity. The court allowed Smith to file an amended complaint correcting the identified problems by September 1, 2025.
Notice and missed deadline
The Clerk first mailed the June 30 order to an address that was incorrectly listed on the docket because of a clerical error. That mailing was returned as undeliverable on July 24, 2025. The Clerk mailed the order again that same day to Smith’s correct address of record. The opinion states that there is no indication that the second mailing was returned.
The September 1 deadline passed. Smith had not filed an amended complaint and had not asked for an extension of time.
Order to show cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Smith to explain why the case should not face a specified consequence. By November 7, 2025, Smith must do one of three things: file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the June 30 order; file a written request for a reasonable extension explaining why more time is needed and how much time is requested; or file a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.
The court stated that if Smith does not respond in one of those ways by November 7, it will issue a Report and Recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The order itself did not dismiss the action. Judge Peter H. Kang also directed the Clerk to mail the order to Smith at her address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.