Johnson v. Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:18-cv-05881
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Gold Touch Investment, Judge Demarchi ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, whose case could be dismissed without prejudice if he did not explain his failure to meet the case-management deadline.
What happened
Scott Johnson sued Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC and other defendants in September 2018. The court had extended the deadline for mediation, but the scheduled mediation was later taken off the calendar.
Johnson’s deadline to request a case-management conference was February 5, 2020. He did not file that request or ask for more time.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered Johnson to respond by February 11 and attend a February 18 hearing to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC · No. 5:18-cv-05881
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against Gold Touch Investment SPE, LLC and other defendants on September 25, 2018. The court had extended the parties’ deadline to complete mediation to January 29, 2020. The mediation scheduled for that date was later taken off the calendar.
Issue
Johnson’s last day to file an administrative motion requesting a case-management conference was February 5, 2020. He did not file that motion and did not ask the court for relief from the deadline.
Order
The court issued an order requiring Johnson to show cause, meaning explain, why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed him to file a written response by February 11, 2020, and to appear at a hearing on February 18, 2020. The opinion does not say that the case was dismissed; it only sets a process for considering dismissal. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.