Che v. GFROERER, A California limited partnership
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-06891
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ngoc Lam Che v. GFROERER, Judge Demarchi ordered Che to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Ngoc Lam Che, whose case was subject to a possible dismissal without prejudice after the court identified missed case deadlines. GFROERER was also affected as the defendant in the action.
What happened
Ngoc Lam Che sued GFROERER in the Northern District of California. The court’s order states that Che filed the action on October 23, 2019.
Under the court’s deadlines, the parties’ last day for a joint site inspection was July 5, 2020, and Che’s last day to request mediation was August 17, 2020. Che did not request mediation or ask for more time.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered Che to respond in writing by August 31, 2020, and to appear on September 8, 2020, to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Che v. GFROERER, A California limited partnership · No. 5:19-cv-06891
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 24, 2020
Background
Ngoc Lam Che filed this action against GFROERER on October 23, 2019. The case was proceeding under General Order 56 and an April 13, 2020 court order concerning the parties’ required steps.
Missed deadline
The parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was July 5, 2020. Che’s last day to file a notice requesting mediation was August 17, 2020. The order states that Che did not file that notice and did not seek relief from the August 17 deadline.
Order
The court stated that it has the inherent power to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and expeditious handling of cases. Rather than dismissing the action at that time, the court issued a second order requiring Che to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Che had to file a written response by August 31, 2020, and appear before the court on September 8, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion does not state a later disposition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.