Volle v. The Spadafore Family Partnership
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-02355
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Volle v. Spadafore Family Partnership, Judge Demarchi ordered Volle to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Debra Volle and the other parties to the action; the order specifically required Volle to respond and appear.
What happened
Debra Volle filed this case against The Spadafore Family Partnership and others. The court set July 24, 2020, as the last day for a joint site inspection and September 4, 2020, as the deadline to notify the court that mediation was needed.
The order says Ms. Macias did not file the required mediation notice or ask for more time. The opinion does not explain Ms. Macias’s relationship to the case or to Volle.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered Volle to submit a written response by October 13, 2020, and appear on October 20, 2020, to show why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Volle v. The Spadafore Family Partnership · No. 5:20-cv-02355
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 8, 2020
Background
Debra Volle filed the action on April 7, 2020. Under the court’s scheduling orders, the parties’ deadline for a joint site inspection was July 24, 2020. The deadline for Ms. Macias to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was September 4, 2020.
Issue
The court addressed whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means not taking required steps to move a case forward.
Order
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. The order says Ms. Macias did not file a notice of need for mediation and did not seek relief from the September 4 deadline.
The court ordered Ms. Volle to file a written response by October 13, 2020, and to appear before the court on October 20, 2020, to show cause—explain why—the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.