Johnson v. Guo
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01477
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Guo, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, the plaintiff, was required to respond to the court and attend a hearing; Kaining Guo, the defendant, was affected because the court warned that the action could be dismissed.
What happened
In Johnson v. Guo, Scott Johnson sued Kaining Guo, and the court issued an order requiring Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Under the court’s scheduling rules, Johnson did not file a required notice seeking mediation by the June 21, 2021 deadline and did not ask for more time. The court ordered him to submit a written response by July 26 and attend a hearing on August 5.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Johnson failed to respond. The opinion itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Guo · No. 5:21-cv-01477
- Edward Davila
- July 13, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against Kaining Guo on March 2, 2021. Under General Order 56, the parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was May 10, 2021. Johnson’s last day to file a notice of need for mediation was June 21, 2021.
Johnson did not file the mediation notice and did not seek relief from the June 21 deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It directed Johnson to file a written response by July 26, 2021, and to appear before the court on August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). “With prejudice” means the dismissal would bar refiling the dismissed action.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause; it did not dismiss the action in this opinion. The court warned that if Johnson failed to file the required written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on July 13, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.