Johnson v. A & V Properties Management, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-08730
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. A & V Properties Management, LLC, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the inactive case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson was required to respond to the court and appear at the scheduled hearing. The action was at risk of dismissal with prejudice if he did not file the required response; the opinion does not state that dismissal had already occurred.
What happened
Johnson v. A & V Properties Management, LLC concerns a case Scott Johnson filed on December 10, 2020. The defendants answered on January 14, 2021, and the court said nothing had happened in the case since then.
The court ordered Johnson to file a written response by July 2, 2021, and to appear on July 15, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court had not yet dismissed the case in this order.
If Johnson did not file the required response by July 2, the court said it would dismiss the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on May 24, 2021.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. A & V Properties Management, LLC · No. 5:20-cv-08730
- Edward Davila
- May 24, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action on December 10, 2020. The defendants answered on January 14, 2021. The court stated that there had been no activity in the case since the defendants filed their answers.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken. The court directed Johnson to file a written response by July 2, 2021, and to appear before the court on July 15, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that if Johnson failed to file a written response by July 2, 2021, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.