Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 18, 2020

Johnson v. D. Johnson

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:19-cv-06164
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Scott Johnson v. Michael D. Johnson, Judge Cousins dismissed the settled action with prejudice and retained jurisdiction for 60 days.

Who this affects

The parties to the settled action: Scott Johnson and the defendants, including Michael D. Johnson and the other named defendants. The case was dismissed with prejudice, administratively closed, and all scheduled dates were vacated, subject to a possible motion to reopen filed within 60 days.

What happened

In Scott Johnson v. Michael D. Johnson, the court was notified that the parties had settled the action and that no issue remained for the court to decide.

The court dismissed the action and all claims with prejudice, directed the clerk to administratively close the case, and vacated all scheduled dates. A party may move to reopen the case within 60 days.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered that the court retain jurisdiction for 60 days.

The detailed version

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

Case
Johnson v. D. Johnson · No. 5:19-cv-06164
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
May 18, 2020

Background

The court stated that it had been notified that the parties settled the action and that no issue remained for the court’s determination.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action and all claims asserted in it be dismissed with prejudice. It directed the clerk to administratively close the case and vacated all scheduled dates. The order allows any party to move to reopen the case if the motion is filed within 60 days. The court retained jurisdiction for those 60 days.

Effect

The dismissal with prejudice ends the action and bars refiling the dismissed claims. The administrative closure does not eliminate the stated 60-day opportunity to seek reopening.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.