Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:15-cv-02726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Hixson ordered Amanda Jones to explain missed deadlines or face likely dismissal.
Amanda Jones and the status of her case; the court ordered her to respond by December 19, 2024 and warned that the case would likely be dismissed if she did not.
What happened
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the court had scheduled a further case management conference and required the parties to file a joint statement.
The parties did not respond to the court’s first deadline, so the court postponed the conference and set a new deadline. No response had been received by December 6, 2024.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Amanda Jones to file a declaration by December 19 explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court deadlines. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that failing to respond would likely lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 3:15-cv-02726
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 6, 2024
Background
On November 14, 2024, the court scheduled a further case management conference for December 5 and ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement by November 29. When the parties did not respond, the court continued the conference to December 12 and required the statement by December 5. The court stated that it had received no response by December 6.
Order to Show Cause
The court cited its inherent power to dismiss an action on its own initiative to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. It ordered Plaintiff Amanda Jones to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Ruling and Deadline
The court ordered Amanda Jones to file a declaration by December 19, 2024. It warned that failing to file a written response would be treated as an admission that she did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. This order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.