Johnson v. Zoline California Holdings LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06095
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Zoline California Holdings LLC, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why the inactive case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson and Zoline California Holdings LLC; the case remained pending subject to Johnson's response and appearance.
What happened
In Johnson v. Zoline California Holdings LLC, Scott Johnson filed the case on August 30, 2020. Zoline California Holdings LLC answered on November 11, 2020, and the court said nothing had happened in the case since then.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written response by July 2, 2021, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. The court also ordered him to appear on July 15, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to address the issue.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order asking for that explanation; he did not dismiss the case in this order. The order states that if Johnson failed to respond by July 2, the court would dismiss the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Zoline California Holdings LLC · No. 5:20-cv-06095
- Edward Davila
- May 25, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action on August 30, 2020. Zoline California Holdings LLC answered on November 11, 2020. The court stated that there had been no activity in the case since the answer.
Order to Show Cause
The court invoked its inherent authority to dismiss an action to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. It issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why a particular action should not be taken. Johnson was directed to file a written response by July 2, 2021, and to appear before the court on July 15, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
Disposition
The order did not dismiss the action. It required Johnson to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court stated that if Johnson failed to file a written response by July 2, 2021, it would dismiss the action with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.