Taylor v. Cooper
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:25-cv-08680
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In John Taylor v. Mr. Cooper, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Taylor to explain why the case should not be dismissed after he failed to oppose defendants’ motion.
John Taylor must respond to the court’s order by December 19, 2025; the defendants’ motion to dismiss remains pending.
What happened
In John Taylor v. Mr. Cooper, defendants removed Taylor’s state-court action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. They argued that Taylor had not properly served them, so the court lacked power over them. Taylor’s opposition was due October 29, 2025, but he had not filed one.
The court ordered Taylor to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and for failing to oppose the motion. His response must be no longer than five pages and must be filed by December 19, 2025. The court has not yet dismissed the case or ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin warned that failing to respond on time may result in dismissal. The order also noted that the court’s standing order treats failure to oppose a motion as consent to granting it.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Cooper · No. 3:25-cv-08680
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
John Taylor filed the action in state court on July 9, 2025. Defendants removed it to federal court on October 9, 2025, and filed a motion to dismiss on October 15, 2025. The motion argues that defendants were never properly served and that the court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over the defendants.
Taylor’s opposition to the motion was due October 29, 2025. The opinion states that he had not filed an opposition as of the date of the order.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Taylor to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed. The court identified two possible grounds: failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not pursue the case, and failure to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court cited factors relevant to a Rule 41(b) dismissal, including the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the parties, and the public interest in resolving litigation promptly. It also noted that the court’s standing order states that failing to file an opposition memorandum constitutes consent to granting the motion.
Taylor’s response may not exceed five pages and must be filed by December 19, 2025. The court warned that failing to respond on time may result in dismissal. The order does not itself dismiss the action and does not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.