Washington v. Superior Court Jury Services

Background

The court stated that Defendant Superior Court of California had filed a motion to dismiss. Bretz Washington did not file an opposition that complied with Civil Local Rule 7. The opinion identifies the captioned defendants as Superior Court Jury Services and others, while referring in the order to the moving defendant as Superior Court of California.

Order to show cause

The court relied on its inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It canceled the August 22, 2024 hearing and ordered Washington to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.

Required response and disposition

Washington was ordered to file a declaration by August 7, 2024. At the same time, he had to file either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Local Civil Rule 7-3(b). If Washington filed an opposition, the defendant could file a reply within seven days after the opposition was entered on the court’s electronic filing system.

This order did not dismiss the case or decide the pending motion to dismiss. Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to provide a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that Washington did not intend to pursue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.