Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-07637
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo, Judge Gilliam ordered Armstrong-Harris to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to prosecute.
Cedric Armstrong-Harris, whose failure to respond could lead to dismissal without prejudice, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Specialized Loan Servicing, the defendants in the case.
What happened
In Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Cedric Armstrong-Harris sued Wells Fargo Bank and Specialized Loan Servicing in state court. Wells Fargo later moved the case to federal court.
Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss, but Armstrong-Harris did not file an opposition or any other filing after the case was moved to federal court. The court therefore ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. required Armstrong-Harris to file a statement of no more than two pages by January 17, 2022. The court also canceled the case management conference scheduled for January 4. The opinion did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:21-cv-07637
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Cedric Armstrong-Harris filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Specialized Loan Servicing in Alameda Superior Court on July 28, 2021. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court on September 29, 2021.
On October 6, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss and represented that it served the motion on Armstrong-Harris that same day. Under the court's local rule, Armstrong-Harris's opposition or statement of non-opposition was due by October 20, 2021. He filed neither. The court also stated that Armstrong-Harris had made no filing before it since Wells Fargo removed the case.
Court's action
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or a court order. It also explained that a court may dismiss for failure to prosecute without a defendant filing a motion, based on the court's inherent authority to manage its cases.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Armstrong-Harris to show cause—that is, to explain—why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court required a statement of no more than two pages by January 17, 2022. It also vacated the case management conference set for January 4, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.