Love v. Amba L.L.C.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-08691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Love v. Amba L.L.C., Judge Davila ordered Love to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The order directly affected Samuel Love, who was required to respond and appear; it also affected Amba L.L.C., whose case could be dismissed if Love did not respond.
What happened
Samuel Love filed Love v. Amba L.L.C. on December 9, 2020. Amba L.L.C. filed an answer and counterclaim, and the Clerk entered default against Love after Amba’s request. No case activity followed.
The court ordered Love to submit a written response by July 12, 2021, explaining why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to move it forward. The court also ordered Love to appear on July 22, 2021, to address the issue.
Judge Edward J. Davila did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that if Love failed to submit the required written response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Love v. Amba L.L.C. · No. 5:20-cv-08691
- Edward Davila
- June 10, 2021
Background
Samuel Love filed the action on December 9,
- Amba L.L.C. filed an answer and counterclaim on January 27,
- At Amba’s request, the Clerk of Court entered default against Love on March 10,
- The opinion states that there had been no activity in the case since then.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Love to file a written response by July 12, 2021, and to appear before the court on July 22, 2021, to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
This order did not itself dismiss the action. It directed Love to respond and warned that, if he failed to file the written response by the deadline, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.