Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)

Citation
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Parent Document
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Effective Date
2004-01-26

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text

951 chars
In WMX Technologies, we specifically noted that a plaintiff may obtain an ap-pealable final judgment by “fil[ing] in writing a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint.” 104 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Lopez v. City of Needles, 95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1996)). Faced with the district court’s initial order dismissing most of her claims and granting leave to amend the RICO claim, Edwards did just what we indicated in WMX Technologies she should do: She made a reasonable choice to expedite the rest of the case and test her belief that the RICO claim was adequately pled. Her Election to Stand Upon the Sufficiency of Amended Complaint Pleadings was a proper means to put that choice in the record and did not merit a sanction. On the contrary, the district court should have taken the election not to amend at face value, entered a final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice, and allowed the case to come to us on appeal in that posture.