Cagno v. Supreme Mortgage Lending
- Kang
- 3:24-cv-04713
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cagno v. Supreme Mortgage, Judge Kang dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after Cagno failed to amend or prosecute.
Joe Cagno’s action was dismissed with prejudice, and final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The opinion identifies the defendant in the caption as Supreme Mortgage Lending, Inc., but states that Cagno sued Everett Financial, Inc. under that name.
What happened
In Joe Cagno v. Supreme Mortgage Lending, Inc., Joe Cagno sued his former employer, identified in the opinion as Everett Financial, Inc., for employment-law, contract, and fraud claims. The court had dismissed his complaint without prejudice and allowed him to file an amended complaint.
Cagno did not amend his complaint, request more time, or continue pursuing this case. Instead, he filed a new lawsuit against the defendant and later admitted that he had abandoned this case and chosen not to amend it.
Judge Peter H. Kang formally dismissed this action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to enter final judgment for the defendant. The court stated that Cagno’s failure to amend converted the earlier dismissal into a final decision on the merits.
The detailed version
- Cagno v. Supreme Mortgage Lending · No. 3:24-cv-04713
- Kang
- Dec. 12, 2025
Background
Joe Cagno brought this action against his former employer, Everett Financial, Inc., which he had sued under the name “Supreme Mortgage Lending, Inc.,” along with unidentified defendants. His claims alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, breach of contract, and fraud.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, including entry of a final judgment. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. On February 10, 2025, the court granted that motion without prejudice and gave Cagno until March 12, 2025, to file an amended complaint.
Failure to Amend and Prosecute
Cagno never filed an amended complaint and never asked the court for more time. The court stated that he effectively abandoned this case. The case was terminated on March 27, 2025.
Cagno instead filed a new lawsuit against the defendant on April 28, 2025. At a December 11, 2025 hearing in that new lawsuit, he admitted that he had abandoned this case, decided not to amend his complaint, and chose to file the new lawsuit instead. The defendant argued that dismissal was also appropriate because Cagno failed to comply with the court’s order requiring an amended complaint by the deadline.
Ruling
Judge Peter H. Kang found that Cagno knowingly chose not to file an amended complaint. The court explained that when a plaintiff does not amend after receiving permission and a deadline to do so, the earlier dismissal without prejudice becomes a final dismissal with prejudice and a final decision on the merits.
The court therefore dismissed this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) concerns dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue the case and provides that such a dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. The court directed the clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the defendant and against Cagno.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.