Padilla v. Western Traffic Control
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-07642
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Padilla v. Western Traffic Control, Judge Seeborg dismissed the case with prejudice because plaintiffs neither amended nor told the court they would not.
The plaintiffs’ action against Western Traffic Control, Inc. was dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s order.
What happened
In Elizabeth Padilla, et al. v. Western Traffic Control, Inc., the court had ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint or tell the court they would not do so by November 10, 2025.
The plaintiffs did neither. The court said Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with a court order.
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the case with prejudice on December 4, 2025.
The detailed version
- Padilla v. Western Traffic Control · No. 3:25-cv-07642
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
On October 20, 2025, the court granted Western Traffic Control, Inc.’s first motion to dismiss. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint or tell the court that they did not intend to do so by November 10, 2025.
Court’s reasoning
The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and did not notify the court that they did not intend to amend. The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to pursue the case or comply with a court order, including by failing to amend on time. The court also cited a Ninth Circuit decision affirming dismissal for failure to amend in a timely manner.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. The opinion is signed by Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg.
Note on judge information
The supplied case metadata identifies Thomas Hixson as the judge, but the opinion text is signed by Richard Seeborg. This summary uses the judge identified by the signature.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.