Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 9, 2024

Estavillo v. Cortese

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:23-cv-04032
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Estavillo v. Cortese, Judge DeMarchi ordered Erik Estavillo to explain his missed amendment deadline or face dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Erik Estavillo was required to respond by August 23, 2024, or the court would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not yet dismiss the case.

What happened

In Estavillo v. Cortese, the court had reset Erik Estavillo’s deadline to file an amended complaint for August 6, 2024. The docket showed that he had not filed one.

The court ordered Mr. Estavillo to submit a written explanation by August 23, 2024, stating why the case should not be dismissed because he failed to pursue it. The order warned that missing the new deadline could lead to dismissal.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi did not dismiss the case in this order. She stated that if Mr. Estavillo did not respond by August 23, 2024, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Estavillo v. Cortese · No. 5:23-cv-04032
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Aug. 9, 2024

Background

The court had previously reset Erik Estavillo’s deadline to file an amended complaint to August 6, 2024. That earlier order warned that failing to meet court-ordered deadlines could result in dismissal for lack of attention to the case and failure to prosecute. The docket indicated that Mr. Estavillo had not filed an amended complaint.

Order to Show Cause

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why a particular action should not be taken. Here, the court required Mr. Estavillo to file a written response by August 23, 2024, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, which means failing to pursue the case.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that if Mr. Estavillo did not respond by August 23, 2024, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order was signed by Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.