Love v. Nguyen
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-02072
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Love v. Nguyen, Judge Davila vacated a status conference and ordered Samuel Love to explain why the case should not be dismissed for inactivity.
Samuel Love must respond to the order and appear at the scheduled hearing or risk dismissal with prejudice. The order concerns the action brought against Dong Nguyen and Ngoc Dung Huynh.
What happened
In Love v. Nguyen, Samuel Love filed the action on March 25, 2020, and the defendants filed an answer on June 3, 2020. Love took no further action after filing the summons return on June 10, 2020.
The court vacated the June 17, 2021 status conference and ordered Love to file a written response by June 21, 2021, and appear on July 1, 2021, to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court had not dismissed the action in this order.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that if Love did not file the required response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Love v. Nguyen · No. 5:20-cv-02072
- Edward Davila
- June 14, 2021
Background
Samuel Love filed the action on March 25, 2020. Dong Nguyen and Ngoc Dung Huynh filed an answer on June 3, 2020. Love filed the summons return on June 10, 2020, and then took no further action.
Court’s Order
The court vacated the status conference scheduled for June 17, 2021. It ordered Love to file a written response by June 21, 2021, and to appear on July 1, 2021, to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward.
The court explained that it has inherent power to dismiss an action to achieve the orderly and efficient handling of cases. It warned that if Love did not file the required written response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the dismissed action. This order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.