Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2021

Johnson v. Bertolotti

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:20-cv-08778
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Bertolotti, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain the case’s inactivity and warned that failure could lead to dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson, who was required to respond to the order and appear at the scheduled hearing to avoid the warned-about dismissal.

What happened

In Johnson v. Bertolotti, Scott Johnson filed the lawsuit on December 11, 2020, and a defendant answered on January 19, 2021. The court said there had been no activity in the case since then.

The court ordered Johnson to submit a written response by July 2, 2021, and attend a July 15, 2021 hearing to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court had not yet dismissed the case, but warned that it would dismiss the action with prejudice if Johnson did not respond by the deadline.

Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on May 25, 2021, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s power to manage inactive cases.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Bertolotti · No. 5:20-cv-08778
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
May 25, 2021

Background

Scott Johnson filed the action on December 11, 2020. A defendant answered on January 19, 2021. The court stated that no activity had occurred in the case since the answer.

Order to Show Cause

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Johnson to explain why the court should not take a specified action. 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.

The required explanation concerned why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal with prejudice generally bars refiling the dismissed claims. The court warned that if Johnson did not file the written response by July 2, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Disposition

The opinion issued an order to show cause; it did not state that the action had already been dismissed. Judge Edward J. Davila relied on the court’s inherent authority to manage cases and promote their orderly and prompt resolution.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.