Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2024

Gonzalez v. Ahern

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:19-cv-07423
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Gonzalez v. Ahern, Judge Corley denied Wellpath’s Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss Tikisha Upshaw, finding it too late.

Who this affects

Tikisha Upshaw remains a plaintiff in the case, and her claims were not dismissed by this order. Wellpath’s motion was denied.

What happened

In Gonzalez v. Ahern, Wellpath asked the court to dismiss Tikisha Upshaw as a plaintiff because the plaintiffs had added her in a 2022 amended complaint without the court’s permission.

The court noted that Wellpath waited nearly two years to raise the issue, participated in the case with Upshaw as a plaintiff, and took her deposition. Wellpath made the request after fact discovery had ended and shortly before expert discovery and summary-judgment briefing, without explaining the delay.

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied Wellpath’s motion and declined to dismiss Upshaw’s claims. The order disposed of Wellpath’s motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gonzalez v. Ahern · No. 3:19-cv-07423
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
Mar. 18, 2024

Background

Wellpath moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss Tikisha Upshaw as a plaintiff. Wellpath argued that the plaintiffs improperly added Upshaw to the Fifth Amended Complaint filed on April 20, 2022, without first obtaining the court’s permission.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is discretionary, meaning the court may decide whether dismissal is appropriate. Wellpath did not explain why it waited nearly two years to file the motion. Although Wellpath filed an untimely joinder in the County’s motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint, neither Wellpath nor another defendant raised an issue about Upshaw at that time.

Instead, Wellpath continued litigating with Upshaw as a plaintiff and noticed and took her deposition on June 23, 2023. Wellpath also did not explain why it sought dismissal after fact discovery had closed and on the eve of expert discovery and summary-judgment briefing. The court concluded that the request came too late and declined to use its discretion to dismiss Upshaw’s claims.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied Wellpath’s motion to dismiss Tikisha Upshaw. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 398. The opinion addressed the timing and procedural basis for the requested dismissal, not the underlying merits of Upshaw’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.