Johnson v. ACV FSD Fremont, LP
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-07258
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. ACV FSD Fremont, LP, Judge Corley dismissed the case with prejudice after Johnson failed to prosecute or follow court orders.
Scott Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act access case was dismissed with prejudice, ending the action against ACV FSD Fremont, LP and the other named defendants.
What happened
Johnson v. ACV FSD Fremont, LP was an Americans with Disabilities Act access case. After the defendants answered, the parties did not complete the required site inspection, settlement meeting, and related filings shown on the case docket.
The court ordered Johnson to provide a status update and later to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Johnson did not respond to either order or otherwise communicate with the court.
Judge Corley concluded that four of five factors supported dismissal and dismissed the entire action with prejudice under the federal rule allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. ACV FSD Fremont, LP · No. 3:20-cv-07258
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 5, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this Americans with Disabilities Act access case on October 16, 2020. The defendants answered on November 20, 2020. A case-management order required the parties to conduct a joint site inspection within 60 days after service of the complaint, hold a settlement meeting within 35 days after that inspection, and file a settlement notice or a notice requesting mediation and certifying counsel within 42 days after the inspection or settlement meeting, whichever came first.
As of June 29, 2021, the docket showed no activity since December 9, 2020. The court ordered Johnson to file a status update by July 13, 2021. When he did not do so, the court ordered him on July 22, 2021, to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. Johnson was required to respond by July 29, 2021, but still did not respond.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order. The court considered five factors: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of harm to the defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available.
The court found that four of the five factors supported dismissal. Johnson’s failure to comply with the case schedule and the court’s orders delayed the case and burdened the court’s docket. The delay also weighed in favor of finding a risk of harm to the defendants. The court had already warned Johnson that failing to respond could result in dismissal, so it found that the court had considered less severe sanctions. The factor favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal.
Disposition
The court concluded that four of the five factors strongly favored dismissal. Judge Jacquelyn Corley therefore dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.