Rasool v. Amtrak
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:21-cv-06510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Rasool v. Union City, Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Union City, declined to dismiss the entire case, and set a filing deadline.
Farhan Rasool, Mehwish Khalid, Union City, and the remaining defendants; the order dismissed Union City from the case but allowed the case against the remaining defendants to continue subject to compliance.
What happened
Rasool v. Union City involved plaintiffs Farhan Rasool and Mehwish Khalid’s objections to a recommendation to dismiss their case. Union City’s dismissal motion was unopposed because plaintiffs did not file a response or explain their delay.
The court adopted the recommendation concerning Union City, but declined to dismiss the entire case for failure to prosecute. It granted plaintiffs’ request for new review on that limited issue and set a December 3, 2021 deadline for their lawyer to show admission to the court’s bar.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers explained that dismissing the entire case was premature because plaintiffs had not been warned that the whole case could be dismissed. The order warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
The detailed version
- Rasool v. Amtrak · No. 3:21-cv-06510
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 19, 2021
Background
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore recommended dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. She made that recommendation after plaintiffs did not respond to Union City’s motion to dismiss or to an order requiring them to file either an opposition or a statement that they did not oppose the motion, and to explain why their opposition was late.
Plaintiffs Farhan Rasool and Mehwish Khalid objected and asked the district judge to review the referred matter anew. Their counsel explained that plaintiffs did not oppose Union City’s motion because they agreed Union City was not responsible, but counsel did not explain why plaintiffs failed to file the required statement or response.
Rulings
The court overruled plaintiffs’ objections in part and adopted the report and recommendation in part. It adopted the recommendation concerning Union City because there was no dispute that Union City should be dismissed.
The court declined to adopt the alternative recommendation that the entire case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Although plaintiffs had disregarded the order to show cause, the court concluded that complete dismissal was premature because the warning had stated that failing to oppose the motion would constitute consent to dismissal of claims against Union City, but did not warn that the entire case could be dismissed. The court also noted the policy favoring decisions on the merits and plaintiffs’ representation that they would continue prosecuting the case against the remaining defendants.
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for review anew in this limited respect. It set a compliance deadline of December 3, 2021, at 9:01 a.m. Five business days before that deadline, plaintiffs’ counsel had to file a notice of appearance showing that counsel was admitted to practice in the Northern District of California. The court warned that failure to identify admitted counsel could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminated Docket Nos. 6, 18, and 26.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.