Goods v. Javate
- P. Casey Pit
- 5:24-cv-01423
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Goods v. Javate, Judge P. Casey Pit dismissed the action without prejudice after Goods failed to file an amended complaint by the final deadline.
Gregory Goods’s action was dismissed without prejudice. The order allows him to seek reopening by filing an amended complaint and a motion labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN.”
What happened
Gregory Goods v. Rosana Javate began after the court dismissed Goods’s original complaint but allowed him to amend it. Goods requested five deadline extensions, each after the prior deadline had passed.
The court granted the fifth request but warned that it was the final extension and that the action would be dismissed if Goods did not file an amended complaint. The final deadline passed without an amended complaint.
Judge P. Casey Pit dismissed the action without prejudice because Goods did not amend despite having an opportunity and warning. The order says Goods may move to reopen by filing an amended complaint and a motion labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN.”
The detailed version
- Goods v. Javate · No. 5:24-cv-01423
- P. Casey Pit
- Sept. 14, 2026
Background
The court had previously dismissed Gregory Goods’s original complaint but allowed him to file an amended complaint. Goods then submitted five requests to extend the amendment deadline. Each request was made after the applicable deadline had already passed.
When the court granted the fifth request, it stated that this would be Goods’s “final extension of time.” The court also warned that the action would be dismissed if Goods did not file an amended complaint by the new deadline.
Ruling
The final deadline passed, and the court had not received an amended complaint from Goods. The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Goods failed to amend despite having an opportunity to do so and a warning about the consequence of failing to act.
What Happens Next
The order states that Goods may move to reopen the action if he believes he can state a legally cognizable claim. To do so, he must file an amended complaint complying with the court’s earlier order and a motion with “MOTION TO REOPEN” on the first page. The opinion does not state whether Goods filed those materials after the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.