Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company
- 3:21-cv-02558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Barge v. Ken Bett’s Towing Company, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after Barge failed to respond.
Melissa Barge’s action against Ken Bett’s Towing Company was dismissed without prejudice because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction after Barge failed to respond to the order to show cause.
What happened
In Barge v. Ken Bett’s Towing Company, the court ordered Melissa Barge to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or to file a second amended complaint addressing jurisdiction and her claim.
The court gave Barge until April 17, 2023, to respond. The opinion states that she did not comply with that order.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and stated that the order terminated the action. The supplied text does not identify the individual judge.
The detailed version
- Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company · No. 3:21-cv-02558
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
On March 27, 2023, the court ordered Melissa Barge to respond to an order to show cause explaining why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal power to hear a case.
The court gave Barge until April 17, 2023, either to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed or to file a second amended complaint. The complaint was required to clearly state the basis for federal jurisdiction, the claim against Ken Bett’s Towing Company, the specific conduct alleged, and the resulting injury.
Ruling
The court found that Barge had not complied with the order to show cause. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The order states that it terminates the action. The supplied opinion text does not identify the individual judge who issued or signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.