Johnson v. R&N Management Inc
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-08827
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. R&N Management Inc., Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson and the pending action; the opinion does not state whether Johnson had a lawyer.
What happened
In Johnson v. R&N Management Inc., Scott Johnson did not file the required notice stating that mediation was needed by the June 1, 2021 deadline, and he did not ask for more time.
The court ordered Johnson to file a written response by July 26, 2021, and to appear on August 5, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward.
Judge Davila stated that if Johnson failed to respond, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. R&N Management Inc · No. 5:20-cv-08827
- Edward Davila
- July 13, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action on December 13, 2020. Under the court’s procedures, the parties’ deadline for conducting a joint site inspection was April 20, 2021, and Johnson’s deadline to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was June 1, 2021. Johnson did not file that notice and did not seek relief from the June 1 deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that it has authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered 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).
Ruling and Effect
Judge Edward J. Davila did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, the court issued an order requiring Johnson to show cause. The order states that if Johnson failed to file a written response by the deadline, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.