Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-04677
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Gilliam ordered plaintiffs to explain why their case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.
Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson, whose case was placed at risk of dismissal unless they explained their failure to prosecute; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank were the defendants.
What happened
In Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank in state court. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, and both defendants filed motions to dismiss. The deadline for responding to those motions passed.
The court had allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyer to withdraw because the plaintiffs had ended the representation and repeatedly failed to communicate with him. The plaintiffs also did not attend the withdrawal hearing. The court ordered them to explain, in a statement of no more than two pages due September 15, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. No dismissal was entered in this order.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also said that the plaintiffs could continue without a lawyer if they could not obtain new counsel, but they would need to provide contact information so they could be served individually.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:21-cv-04677
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 27, 2021
Background
Robert Jackson and Queen Jackson filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank in Contra Costa Superior Court. Wells Fargo removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss, but the deadline for the plaintiffs to oppose those motions had passed.
On August 27, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s motion to withdraw. The opinion says the plaintiffs had decided to end the representation and had consistently failed to communicate with their lawyer. The plaintiffs also did not appear at the hearing on the withdrawal motion. The court stated that it was therefore unclear whether they wanted to continue the case.
Order to Show Cause
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court also explained that a judge may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute even without a defendant first filing a dismissal motion.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—that is, explain—why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs had to file a statement of no more than two pages by September 15, 2021. The order did not dismiss the case; it required the plaintiffs to respond before the court decided whether dismissal was warranted.
Representation
The court stated that the plaintiffs could appear without a lawyer if they could not obtain new counsel. If they did so, they had to provide the court with their contact information so they could be served as individuals. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.