Johnson v. Eastridge Medical Center, L.P.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-00222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Eastridge Medical Center, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why his inactive case should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Scott Johnson, whose failure to respond could lead to dismissal of his action, and Eastridge Medical Center, L.P., the defendant in that action.
What happened
In Johnson v. Eastridge Medical Center, L.P., Scott Johnson filed a lawsuit, and Eastridge Medical Center filed an answer. Johnson did not file required mediation paperwork or seek an extension, and neither side took action after April 27, 2021.
The court ordered Johnson to respond in writing and attend a hearing to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to move it forward. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that the case would be dismissed with prejudice if Johnson did not respond by September 20, 2021.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Eastridge Medical Center, L.P. · No. 5:21-cv-00222
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 2, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action on January 11, 2021. He did not file proof that the summons had been served, although Eastridge Medical Center, L.P. filed an answer on February 16, 2021. Based on the latest possible service date, the court stated that the parties' deadline for a joint site inspection was April 16, 2021, and Johnson's deadline to file a notice requesting mediation was May 28, 2021.
Johnson did not file the mediation notice or ask for relief from the May 28 deadline. Neither party had taken any action in the case since April 27, 2021.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause—an order requiring a party to explain why a specified action should not be taken. It directed Johnson to file a written response by September 20, 2021, and to appear at a September 30, 2021 hearing to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court warned that if Johnson did not file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice. The opinion is an order to show cause, not a final dismissal order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.