Soman v. Alameda Health System
- James Donato
- 3:17-cv-06076
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Soman v. Alameda Health System, Judge Donato ordered plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Jas Soman, the putative class members, plaintiffs’ counsel, and Alameda Health System were affected by the order. The plaintiffs faced a possible dismissal if they did not respond by November 10, 2021; the defendant was asked whether it would contest a remand.
What happened
In Jas Soman v. Alameda Health System, the parties reported a settlement in August 2020 and said they would seek either a return to state court or approval of a class settlement. Neither filing followed, and plaintiffs later asked to return the case to state court, citing a lack of constitutional standing for their Fair Credit Reporting Act claim.
The court questioned the delay, the unexplained changes in the parties’ plans, and the handling of the case by plaintiffs’ lawyers. It ordered plaintiffs to explain in writing by November 10, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to say whether the reported settlement was still viable. The court warned that missing the deadline would result in dismissal of the complaint and closure of the case. It also directed the defendant to state by that date whether it would oppose returning the case to state court.
Judge James Donato issued an order to show cause; the opinion did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Soman v. Alameda Health System · No. 3:17-cv-06076
- James Donato
- Nov. 3, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed a notice stating that the parties had reached a settlement in August 2020 and intended to jointly ask the court to return the case to the Alameda Superior Court. The parties later reported that they instead planned to submit a proposed class-action settlement for preliminary approval. Neither a remand stipulation nor a motion for preliminary approval was filed.
After more than a year without further activity, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to California state court. They argued that they lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient injury to sue in federal court—to pursue a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim under the principles discussed in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The plaintiffs did not explain the delay in seeking remand or what happened to the proposed settlement.
Court’s Action
The court expressed concern that plaintiffs’ counsel were not diligently managing the class action, potentially harming the named plaintiffs and putative class members. It also said the lack of diligence burdened the court’s administration of its docket. The court noted that dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders could be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause in writing by November 10, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs were directed to state whether the August 2020 settlement remained viable. The order warned that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the complaint and closure of the case under Rule 41(b). The court also directed the defendant to advise by November 10 whether it intended to contest a remand.
Disposition
This order did not dismiss the case. It required the plaintiffs to explain why dismissal should not occur and warned of the stated consequence if they failed to meet the deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.