Johnson v. Bryan
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01864
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Bryan, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to prosecute.
Scott Johnson was required to respond to the court and appear at the scheduled hearing; the action could be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to file the required response.
What happened
In Johnson v. Bryan, Scott Johnson filed the case on March 17, 2021. The court said he did not file a required notice of mediation by the June 27, 2021 deadline or ask for more time.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written response by September 20, 2021, explaining why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to prosecute. It also ordered him to appear in court on September 30, 2021, to address the issue.
Judge Davila did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that the court would dismiss it with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Johnson failed to respond by the deadline.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Bryan · No. 5:21-cv-01864
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 2, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action on March 17, 2021. Under General Order 56, the parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was May 16, 2021, and Johnson’s last day to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was June 27, 2021. The court stated that Johnson did not file that notice and did not seek relief from the June 27 deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court cited its inherent power to dismiss an action to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. It directed Johnson to file a written response by September 20, 2021, and to appear before the court on September 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it ordered Johnson to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court stated that if Johnson failed to file a written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under that rule. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.