Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2019

Johnson v. Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:18-cv-05881
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Gold Touch, Judge Demarchi ordered Johnson to explain why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson was required to submit a written response and attend the scheduled hearing; the action remained pending under this order.

What happened

Scott Johnson sued Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC and other defendants. The court said Johnson had not filed a required request for a case management conference after the deadline connected to mediation, and it was unclear whether mediation occurred.

The court ordered Johnson to submit a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It also ordered him to attend a hearing and show cause, meaning explain why dismissal should not occur.

Judge Demarchi did not dismiss the action in this order. The response was due December 10, 2019, and the hearing was set for December 17, 2019.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC · No. 5:18-cv-05881
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Dec. 4, 2019

Background

Scott Johnson filed the action on September 25, 2018. Under an earlier court order, Johnson’s last day to file an administrative motion requesting a case management conference was seven days after mediation. The docket stated that the parties’ deadline to complete mediation was July 22, 2019.

The court stated that Johnson did not file the case-management motion and did not ask for relief from the deadline. The court also said it was unclear whether mediation took place.

Order to Show Cause

The court explained that it has inherent power—the authority to manage its own cases—to dismiss an action on its own initiative when necessary for the orderly and prompt handling of cases. The court ordered Johnson to file a written response by December 10, 2019, explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice generally does not bar a later filing, but this order did not itself dismiss the action.

The court also ordered Johnson to appear on December 17, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 in San Jose, California, to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.