Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:22-cv-03596
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Effinger v. Ancient Organics, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Stevernu to explain his nonparticipation or face dismissal without prejudice.
Plaintiff Keefe Stevernu must respond to the order by July 28, 2025; plaintiffs’ counsel must serve him and file proof of service. The action may be dismissed without prejudice if he does not respond.
What happened
Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC concerns Plaintiff Keefe Stevernu, whose lawyer was allowed to withdraw on September 3, 2024. The order says Stevernu has not appeared or filed papers since then.
The court ordered Stevernu to submit a written explanation by July 28, 2025, showing why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court has not yet dismissed the action.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said the action will be dismissed without prejudice if Stevernu does not respond by the deadline. The court also ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to send Stevernu the order by email and first-class mail and file proof of service by June 30, 2025.
The detailed version
- Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC · No. 3:22-cv-03596
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 23, 2025
Background
On September 3, 2024, the court granted counsel’s request to withdraw from representing Plaintiff Keefe Stevernu. The opinion states that Stevernu has not appeared or filed any papers since that date. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, which requires a party to explain why a specified action should not be taken. Here, the court ordered Stevernu to file a written response by July 28, 2025, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the case.
The court stated that if Stevernu does not file a response by the deadline, it will dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order therefore did not itself dismiss the action. The court also ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to serve a copy of the order on Stevernu by email and first-class mail and to file proof of service by June 30, 2025.
Disposition
The court entered an order to show cause regarding possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not report whether Stevernu later responded or whether the action was ultimately dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.