Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2021

Thayer v. Uber, Inc. - Uber Eat's

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:21-cv-03936
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Thayer v. Uber, Judge Rogers dismissed the case because Zachary Thayer did not file the required amended complaint.

Who this affects

Zachary Thayer’s case was dismissed; the order also directed the clerk to close the file and not accept further filings in the docket.

What happened

In Thayer v. Uber, Inc. — Uber Eat’s, the court had previously dismissed Zachary Thayer’s first amended complaint but allowed him to file another amended complaint.

That amended complaint was due October 15, 2021. The court said Thayer had not filed one by November 5, 2021.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the earlier dismissal stood and dismissed the case. The clerk was directed to close the file and not accept further filings in the docket.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thayer v. Uber, Inc. - Uber Eat's · No. 4:21-cv-03936
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Nov. 5, 2021

Background

On September 15, 2021, the court dismissed Zachary Thayer’s first amended complaint and gave him permission to file another amended complaint. The new complaint was due by October 15, 2021.

Court’s Ruling

The court stated that Thayer had not filed an amended complaint by November 5, 2021. It therefore held that the earlier dismissal stood and dismissed the case for failure to file an amended complaint.

The clerk was ordered to close the file and not accept further filings in the docket. The order stated that it terminated the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.