Robb v. O'Malley
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-02885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Robb v. O’Malley, Judge DeMarchi ordered Michael James Robb to explain by August 23 why his Social Security case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Michael James Robb, whose Social Security action was placed at risk of dismissal without prejudice because he had not filed the required motion by the stated deadline.
What happened
In Robb v. O’Malley, Michael James Robb filed a Social Security case against Martin O’Malley. The court’s scheduling order required Robb to file a motion for summary judgment or remand after O’Malley filed an answer and the administrative record.
O’Malley filed the answer and administrative record on July 12, 2024. Robb’s motion was due by August 12, 2024, but the court said that no motion had been filed.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Robb to respond in writing by August 23, 2024, and explain why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court had not yet dismissed the action in this order.
The detailed version
- Robb v. O'Malley · No. 5:24-cv-02885
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 16, 2024
Background
Michael James Robb filed this Social Security action on May 13, 2024, against Martin O’Malley. The court had issued a Social Security scheduling order requiring Robb to file a motion for summary judgment or remand within 30 days after O’Malley filed an answer.
Missed filing deadline
O’Malley filed an answer and the administrative record on July 12, 2024. Based on that filing, Robb’s motion was due no later than August 12, 2024. The opinion states that Robb had not filed the motion by the time of this order.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It directed Robb to file a written response by August 23, 2024, explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Failure to prosecute” means failing to take required steps to move a case forward. The court did not dismiss the action in this order; it required Robb to respond before deciding whether dismissal was warranted.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.