UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 24-2679 JGB (SHKx) Date August 18, 2025 Title Melvia Harris et al. v. City of Los Angeles

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Case (IN CHAMBERS) On December 19, 2024, Plaintiffs Melvia Harris and Roberta Knighten filed a complaint against Defendant the City of Los Angeles. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) In March, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) moved to intervene as a defendant in the case, and the Court granted its motion. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 45.) Both the City and SAJE moved to dismiss the complaint, and in July, the Court granted both motions. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 47, 55.) The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend on two of their claims, and instructed they file an amended complaint no later than August 8, 2025. (Dkt. No. 55.) In lieu of amending their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint.” (“Notice,” Dkt. No. 56.)

In Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a “plaintiff has informed the court of her decision not to amend,” the dismissal shall be under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 41(b), even though a plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). At that point, “the threatened dismissal merely ripens into a final, appealable judgment.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs have announced their intention not to amend their complaint, and so dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (plaintiff must “obtain a final order of dismissal from the district court” even if it elects to stand on its pleadings).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.