Glinoga v. Sullivan Entertainment Inc. et al

1
25CV0707-GPC(SBC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK GLINOGA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
SULLIVAN HOME ENTERTAINMENT
LIMITED, SULLIVAN
ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL
INC., AND SULLIVAN
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25CV0707-GPC(SBC)
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR
FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT
ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT
On October 30, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to allege he suffered a concrete harm to
support Article III standing. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend
the complaint by November 21, 2025. (Id.)
“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a
district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire
action.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Yourish v. Cal.
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a district court that had granted
Case 3:25-cv-00707-GPC-SBC Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25CV0707-GPC(SBC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
leave to amend the complaint did not abuse its discretion by dismissing entire action
when plaintiff failed to replace a defective complaint)).
It has been over four months since the deadline of November 21, 2025 to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he requested
an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil
action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of
the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the
complaint or indicating to the court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the
sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter
final judgment of dismissal and to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00707-GPC-SBC Document 16 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2