Johnson v. Ziegler-Hoffman Properties
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-03006
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Ziegler-Hoffman Properties, Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, whose failure to respond could result in dismissal of his action; the defendants, because the case could be terminated.
What happened
In Johnson v. Ziegler-Hoffman Properties, Scott Johnson did not file a required notice stating that mediation was needed by the October 6, 2021 deadline, and he did not ask for more time or other relief.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written explanation by November 29, 2021, and to appear on December 9, 2021, to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court had not yet dismissed the case in this order.
Judge Davila stated that if Johnson did not submit the required response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Ziegler-Hoffman Properties · No. 5:21-cv-03006
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 16, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action on April 26, 2021. Under the court's General Order 56, the parties' last day to conduct a joint site inspection was June 25, 2021, and Johnson's last day to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was October 6, 2021.
Issue
The court noted that Johnson had not filed the mediation notice and had not sought relief from the October 6 deadline. The order therefore required him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means not moving a case forward as required.
Order
The court directed Johnson to file a written response by November 29, 2021, and to appear before the court on December 9, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to show cause—that is, explain why dismissal should not occur. The court stated that if Johnson failed to file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order itself was an order to show cause and did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.