Johnson v. 595 Park Avenue, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. 595 Park Avenue, LLC, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, whose case was at risk of dismissal with prejudice for failing to meet a case-management deadline.
What happened
In Johnson v. 595 Park Avenue, LLC, Scott Johnson filed the case on March 1, 2021.
The court said Johnson did not file a required notice asking for mediation by the June 25, 2021 deadline and did not ask for more time.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Johnson to respond by July 26, 2021, and appear on August 5, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order said the court would dismiss the case with prejudice if Johnson did not respond, but it did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. 595 Park Avenue, LLC · No. 5:21-cv-01440
- Edward Davila
- July 13, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action on March 1, 2021. Under the court's case-management procedures, the parties' last day to conduct a joint site inspection was April 30, 2021, and Johnson's last day to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was June 25, 2021.
The court stated that Johnson did not file the mediation notice and did not seek relief from the June 25 deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order requiring Johnson to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A failure-to-prosecute dismissal is a case-ending dismissal based on a party's failure to move the case forward. The court relied on its power to manage cases efficiently.
The court 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 address the issue. The order stated that if Johnson failed to file the written response by the deadline, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The order itself was an order to show cause; it did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.