Cox v. Ford Motor Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05386
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cox v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Gilliam dismissed both cases without leave to amend after Cox missed the amendment deadline.
Daavon Cox’s two cases against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn were dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendants.
What happened
Daavon Cox filed two cases against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn. The court had previously dismissed Ford’s motions-related claims and allowed Cox until May 27, 2022, to file amended complaints addressing identified problems.
Cox did not file amended complaints by the deadline. He later submitted late responses to orders asking why the cases should not be dismissed, but those responses did not explain the delay or show how amendment could fix the problems.
The court found that further amendment would be futile, dismissed both cases without leave to amend, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the cases. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:21-cv-05386
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
Daavon Cox initially filed both actions without a lawyer in Alameda Superior Court. In the first action, Cox sued Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn. In the second, he sued the same defendants and also listed Elon Musk as an agent or employee of the defendants.
On April 28, 2022, the court granted Ford Motor Company’s motions to dismiss the claims in both cases. The court gave Cox until May 27, 2022, to file amended complaints addressing the deficiencies identified in that order and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.
Failure to Amend
Cox did not file an amended complaint in either case by the deadline. The court issued orders requiring him to explain why the cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the cases forward. Cox filed late responses, but the responses did not explain why he missed the deadline or how additional time to amend could cure the identified deficiencies.
Ruling
The court found that further leave to amend would be futile. It therefore dismissed both actions without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants in both cases and close the cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.