Johnson v. Piercy
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-07591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Piercy, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, who was required to explain why his action against William Mark Piercy should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Scott Johnson brought Johnson v. Piercy on October 29, 2020. After the court ordered the parties to hold a settlement meeting, Johnson did not file the required notice of need for mediation, and neither party took further action.
The court ordered Johnson to file a written response by August 2, 2021, and to appear on August 12, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order warned that the court would dismiss the case with prejudice if Johnson did not respond by the deadline.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on July 16, 2021. The opinion is an order to show cause; it did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Piercy · No. 5:20-cv-07591
- Edward Davila
- July 16, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action against William Mark Piercy on October 29, 2020. On May 27, 2021, the court granted Johnson’s request for an order requiring Piercy to provide dates when he was available for the settlement meeting required by the court’s General Order 56. The court ordered the parties to conduct that meeting by June 30, 2021, and ordered Johnson to file a notice of need for mediation no later than seven days after the meeting.
Johnson did not file the notice by July 7, 2021, which the order identified as the latest possible filing date. Neither party had taken any action in the case since the court’s May 27 order.
Order
The court relied on its inherent authority to dismiss an action to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It directed Johnson to file a written response by August 2, 2021, and to appear before the court on August 12, 2021, to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The order stated that if Johnson failed to file a written response by the deadline, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The court did not dismiss the action in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.