Hersey v. Westlake Financial Services
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-07282
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jeffery Hersey v. Westlake Financial Services, Judge DeMarchi ordered Hersey to explain by October 30 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Jeffery Hersey, whose case may be dismissed if he does not respond to the order by October 30, 2025, after failing to submit a renewed fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee by the earlier deadline.
What happened
In Jeffery Hersey v. Westlake Financial Services, the court said it had previously denied without prejudice Hersey’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it found discrepancies or inconsistencies. The court gave him until September 26, 2025, to submit a new application or pay the fee.
That deadline passed, and the docket did not show that Hersey had submitted a new application or paid the fee. The court therefore ordered him to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi set October 30, 2025, as the response deadline. The court has not dismissed the case in this order; it stated that it will issue an order for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders if Hersey does not respond.
The detailed version
- Hersey v. Westlake Financial Services · No. 5:25-cv-07282
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
On September 4, 2025, the court denied without prejudice Jeffery Hersey’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified discrepancies or inconsistencies in the application and gave Hersey until September 26, 2025, either to file a renewed application or to pay the filing fee.
The earlier order warned that the court might recommend dismissing the case if Hersey did not meet that deadline. The September 26 deadline passed, and the court stated that the docket showed no renewed application and no payment of the filing fee.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that it has the inherent power to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Hersey to file a written response by October 30, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, failure to move the case forward—and/or failure to comply with court orders.
Disposition
This order did not dismiss the action. Instead, it required Hersey to show cause by the stated deadline. The court said it will issue an order for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders if he does not respond by October 30, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.