Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Cuihua Luo v. Stephen Vuong, Judge Hixson ordered Luo to explain her missed filing or face likely dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Cuihua Luo is directly affected because she was ordered to respond by February 6, 2025 or risk likely dismissal for failure to prosecute. Stephen Vuong is affected because the order sets a deadline for any reply to Luo’s opposition. The case itself was not dismissed in this order.
What happened
Cuihua Luo v. Stephen Vuong concerns Stephen Vuong’s pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion says Luo did not file an opposition in compliance with the court’s local rules.
The court ordered Luo to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it and failing to meet court deadlines. Luo had to file a declaration and either a compliant opposition or a statement saying she did not oppose the motion by February 6, 2025. If she filed an opposition, Vuong could file a reply by February 13, 2025.
Judge Thomas Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing would be treated as an admission that Luo did not intend to continue prosecuting the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide Vuong’s motion.
The detailed version
- Luo v. City of Pleasant Hill · No. 3:22-cv-02981
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
The court identified Stephen Vuong’s pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed as ECF No. 61. The opinion states that Cuihua Luo failed to file an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7.
Order to Show Cause
The court invoked its inherent authority to dismiss an action to achieve the orderly and expeditious handling of cases. It ordered Luo to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Luo was ordered to file a declaration by February 6, 2025, and at the same time file either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Rule 7-3(b). If Luo filed an opposition, Vuong could file a reply by February 13, 2025.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause; it did not dismiss the case in this order and did not rule on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court warned that failing to submit a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that Luo did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.