Johnson v. Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01399
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, who was required to respond to the order and appear in court; the action against Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC was at risk of dismissal.
What happened
In Johnson v. Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC, Scott Johnson sued Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC. The court had set deadlines for a joint site inspection and for filing a notice that mediation was needed.
Johnson did not file the required mediation notice by July 13, 2021, and did not ask for more time. The opinion does not state why he missed the deadline.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Johnson to respond in writing by July 26, 2021, and appear in court on August 5, 2021, to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the action, but warned that dismissal would follow if Johnson failed to respond.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC · No. 5:21-cv-01399
- Edward Davila
- July 13, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action on February 26, 2021. Under General Order 56, the parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was May 25, 2021. Johnson’s last day to file a notice of need for mediation was July 13, 2021.
The opinion states that Johnson did not file the mediation notice and did not seek relief from the July 13 deadline. It does not explain the reason for his failure to meet the deadline.
Order
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and expeditious handling of cases. It issued an order to show cause, meaning Johnson was ordered to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Johnson was ordered to file a written response by July 26, 2021, and appear before the court on August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The court warned that if he failed to file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.