Beatriz P. v. Dudek
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-02608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Beatriz P. v. Dudek, Judge Kang ordered Beatriz P. to explain her missed brief deadline or face possible dismissal.
Beatriz P. is required to respond by July 28, 2025, or file her opening brief by that date; the case could be dismissed if she does not comply.
What happened
Beatriz P. appealed a Social Security decision, but did not file the opening brief required by the court’s schedule after the Acting Commissioner answered. The brief was due June 18, 2025, and Beatriz P. did not request more time.
The court issued an order requiring Beatriz P. to explain in writing by July 28, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and follow the court’s order. She could instead file the overdue opening brief by that date.
Judge Kang did not dismiss the case at this time, but warned that failing to respond or file the brief could lead to dismissal of the entire case.
The detailed version
- Beatriz P. v. Dudek · No. 3:25-cv-02608
- Kang
- July 10, 2025
Background
Beatriz P. filed this Social Security appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court entered a procedural order requiring her to file and serve an opening brief within 30 days after the Acting Commissioner filed an answer. The Acting Commissioner filed the administrative record and answer on May 19, 2025, making the opening brief due June 18, 2025.
Beatriz P. had not filed the opening brief by July 10, 2025, and had not asked the court to extend the deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or follow court orders. The court found that the missed brief deadline showed a failure to pursue the case and comply with the procedural order. It warned that these failures could support dismissal of the entire case.
The court did not order dismissal at this time. Instead, Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order to show cause, requiring Beatriz P. to file a written explanation by July 28, 2025, showing why the case should not be dismissed. As an alternative, she could file the overdue opening brief by that date. The court stated that a timely opening brief would automatically end the order to show cause. The order warned that failure to comply could result in further consequences, including dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.