Johnson v. Sanchez
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-08078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Sanchez, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson and his action against J Xavier Sanchez; the court warned that the action could be dismissed with prejudice if Johnson did not respond by the stated deadline.
What happened
In Johnson v. Sanchez, Scott Johnson did not file a required notice asking for mediation by the April 19, 2021 deadline, and he did not ask for more time.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written explanation by July 26, 2021, and to attend a hearing on August 5, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court had not yet dismissed the case in this order.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that the case would be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Johnson did not timely respond.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Sanchez · No. 5:20-cv-08078
- Edward Davila
- July 13, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action against J Xavier Sanchez on November 17, 2020. Under General Order 56 and the parties' agreement, the deadline for conducting a joint site inspection was February 25, 2021. The court later approved an agreement extending the deadline for filing a notice of need for mediation. Johnson's deadline to file that notice was April 19, 2021.
Johnson did not file the mediation notice and did not ask the court for relief from the April 19 deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own to manage cases efficiently. It ordered Johnson to file a written response by July 26, 2021, explaining why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also ordered Johnson to appear on August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., for a hearing on that issue.
Disposition
This order did not dismiss the action. It required Johnson to show cause—provide a reason—why dismissal should not occur. The court warned that if Johnson failed to file a timely written response, it 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.