Johnson v. Wong
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-06859
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Judge Orrick dismissed Johnson v. Wong with prejudice because Johnson failed to prosecute and did not respond to the court’s order.
Scott Johnson, whose case against Nan Wong was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Johnson v. Wong, the court ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it and comply with General Order 56.
Johnson did not respond by the February 9, 2021 deadline. The court had warned that failing to respond on time would lead to dismissal.
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Wong · No. 3:19-cv-06859
- William Orrick
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
On January 26, 2021, the court ordered Scott Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with General Order 56. The court set a February 9, 2021 deadline for Johnson’s response and warned that a late or missing response would result in dismissal.
Ruling
Johnson did not respond by the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order cited Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.