Majda Car v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution after Defendant Discover Financial Services, Inc. had been served but had not timely responded. The court also struck Plaintiff’s Notice of Doe Amendment and directed that any new defendants be added through an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff seeking to add new defendants in federal court must do so through an amended complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15; a notice of Doe amendment is not the proper procedural vehicle.
2. The plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and was directed either to obtain a response from the defendant through an extension stipulation or to apply for entry of default against a properly served defendant that had not timely responded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff could add new Doe defendants by filing a notice rather than an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2. Whether plaintiff should be required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution based on the served defendant's failure to respond and plaintiff's failure to seek entry of default.

Disposition

other