Ngoc Tran Ton v. New York Life Insurance Company et al

1
23-CV-2200-W-AHG
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
THAO NGOC TRAN TON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No.: 23-CV-2200-W-AHG
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
REFILING IN AN APPROPRIATE
COURT AND CLOSING CASE
(Doc. 24, 25, 26)
Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Thao Ngoc Tran Ton
pro se and not through her counsel of record. The motions are (1) Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside a Dismissed Order Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b) [Doc. 24], (2) Motion to
Relieve the Attorney and Proceed Pro Se [Doc. 25], and (3) Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 26]. Plaintiff’s counsel filed no response to the
motion requesting his termination. Also, counsel for Plaintiff did not move to withdraw
from representation of Plaintiff, and the Court has not granted his leave to withdraw.
Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (“An attorney may not
withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.”); see also Civ.L.R. 83.3.f.3.
//
//
Case 3:23-cv-02200-W-AHG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
23-CV-2200-W-AHG
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
The Court enters the following Order for greater clarity for Plaintiff who has been
filing documents independent of her counsel of record.
After notice and filings from both parties represented by counsel, this case was
dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to allege
sufficient facts to establish standing. (Dismissal Order [Doc. 14].) In the Dismissal
Order, the Court concluded that (1) Plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to support
standing to give the Court jurisdiction over the case and (2) three of Plaintiff’s four
claims were barred by the statute of limitations, leaving only her “Insurance Bad Faith
Claim” as not time barred. (Id. at 4–6.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend on or
before November 4, 2024. (Id. at 7.) No timely amended complaint or request for
extension of time was filed.
After dismissal and the lapse of the time to amend, Plaintiff attempted multiple
filings that the Court struck from the record as inappropriately filed in a dismissed case
over which the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction based on a lack of standing, see
ECF Admin. Policies & Proc. Man. § 2.g.5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (“The Court may,
upon its own motion, strike any inappropriately filed document.”). (See Doc. 15, 17, 19,
21.) After the first two of these four filings, the Court entered an order dismissing the
case without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to file her case in a court of competent
jurisdiction. (Second Dismissal [Doc. 18].) There, the Court reiterated for all parties the
impact of its Dismissal Order in combination with Plaintiff’s failure to amend or to seek
an extension of time to amend between November 4, 2024, and January 23, 2025. (Id.)
More than three months after the deadline to amend her pleading, Plaintiff, through
counsel of record, attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint without seeking leave
to file late or seeking relief from the dismissal.1 (Doc. 19; see also Doc. 20-1 (containing
1 The Court takes judicial notice of its own docket. Fed. R. Evid. 201. In the Second Amended
Complaint, that was rejected by discrepancy order, Plaintiff abandoned the causes barred by statute of
limitations pursuant to the Dismissal Order, suggesting knowledge of the Dismissal Order and its
rulings. (See Doc. 20-1 at 11–12.)
Case 3:23-cv-02200-W-AHG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
23-CV-2200-W-AHG
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
the header and electronic signature of Plaintiff’s counsel of record).) The Court struck
that document by discrepancy order because the case had been dismissed and, before the
Court at that time, there was (1) no timely request for additional time, (2) no request for
leave to file after the deadline, (3) no request for relief from the Dismissal Order, and (4)
no timely filed amended complaint. (Doc. 20.)
Some nine months later, on October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “request for
miscellaneous relief.” (Third Submission [Doc. 21].) There, Plaintiff argued that her
counsel did not call her immediately after the Dismissal Order and failed to ask her for
her instructions regarding amendment of her complaint. (Id. at 1.) By discrepancy order,
the Court struck the Third Submission on November 6, 2025, noting that the “case was
closed as of January 23, 2025.” (Doc. 22.) On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter
to the Court, arguing that her counsel committed malpractice and requesting the Court
permit her to file a motion to vacate the order of dismissal on grounds of her lawyer’s
malpractice. (Doc. 23.)
There is no pleading before the Court in this case. Plaintiff remains free to pursue
her allegations—against Defendant or her counsel—in another court with jurisdiction.
However, because Plaintiff conflates the actions of her counsel with the timing of her
response to the Court’s original Dismissal Order, the Court sets forth here for Plaintiff’s
benefit the following additional instructions:
• 	The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this closed case that lacked
standing, and there is no operative pleading in this closed case. Plaintiff,
however, remains unconstrained by this Court (by virtue of the dismissal
without prejudice) to pursue her claims in another and appropriate court by
filing a lawsuit there.
It is FURTHER ORDERD that,
• 	Plaintiff’s pending motions [Doc. 24, 25, 26] are denied without prejudice to
her raising them in an appropriate court, regardless of whether such potential
Case 3:23-cv-02200-W-AHG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
23-CV-2200-W-AHG
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
proceedings are related to Plaintiff’s arguments about insurance or
malpractice.
• 	Plaintiff is instructed that further filings in this case may be construed as a
violation of Court order. See Civ.L.R. 83.1(a).
The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:23-cv-02200-W-AHG Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4