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 Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for missed deadlines.
Cedric Armstrong-Harris was required to explain his missed deadlines and respond to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss to continue pursuing the case. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Specialized Loan Servicing were the defendants.
What happened
Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. began when Cedric Armstrong-Harris, representing himself, sued Wells Fargo Bank and Specialized Loan Servicing in state court. Wells Fargo moved the case to federal court.
Armstrong-Harris did not respond to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss by the deadline. He responded late to an earlier court order but then missed another deadline to file either an opposition or a statement saying he did not oppose the motion.
The court ordered Armstrong-Harris to explain by March 21, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also required him to file his response to Wells Fargo’s motion by that deadline; the opinion did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:21-cv-07637
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 10, 2022
Background
Cedric Armstrong-Harris filed a complaint without a lawyer against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Specialized Loan Servicing in Alameda Superior Court. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court. Wells Fargo then filed a motion to dismiss.
Armstrong-Harris did not respond to the motion to dismiss. The court issued an order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. Armstrong-Harris responded to that order nine days late, and the court gave him additional time to respond to Wells Fargo’s motion.
Missed Deadline
The court directed Armstrong-Harris to file either an opposition to the motion or a statement that he did not oppose it by February 18, 2022. He did neither. Wells Fargo filed a notice stating that Armstrong-Harris had not opposed the motion.
Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or follow court rules or orders. The court explained that it may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute even without a defendant first filing a dismissal motion.
The court ordered Armstrong-Harris to show cause—that is, explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. He was required to file a statement of no more than two pages by March 21, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. If he wanted to continue the case, he also had to file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion by the same deadline. The opinion did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.