Johnson v. Sonorense Corporation, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-02670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Sonorense Corporation, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it.
Scott Johnson was required to respond to the court and appear to explain the missed mediation-related deadline; Sonorense Corporation, Inc. was the defendant in the action and could be affected by any later dismissal.
What happened
In Johnson v. Sonorense Corporation, Inc., Scott Johnson filed the case on April 14, 2021. The court set August 15, 2021, as his deadline to notify the court that mediation was needed, but he did not file that notice or request more time.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written explanation by October 4, 2021, and appear on October 14, 2021, to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court had not yet dismissed the case in this order.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that if Johnson did not submit the required written response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Sonorense Corporation, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02670
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 15, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action on April 14, 2021. Under the court’s scheduling order, the parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was July 5, 2021, and Johnson’s last day to file a notice that mediation was needed was August 15, 2021. Johnson did not file that notice and did not ask the court for relief from the August 15 deadline.
Order
The court invoked its inherent authority to manage and close cases efficiently and issued an order to show cause. An order to show cause requires a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken. The court directed Johnson to file a written response by October 4, 2021, and to appear on October 14, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). “With prejudice” means the case would be barred from being brought again on the same basis.
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that if Johnson failed to file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.