Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-09162
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. T&V Investment, Judge Tigar denied Johnson’s inspection-related request and ordered him to explain possible service and deadline violations.
Scott Johnson, T&V Investment, Inc., Chinh Do, and Johnson’s counsel were affected. Johnson was required to provide written explanations concerning service and compliance with court orders; the order also concerned the requested site inspection and the possible dismissal of claims against Do.
What happened
In Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc., Scott Johnson asked the court to require defendants to provide three dates for a joint site inspection and to extend the inspection deadline to April 22, 2022. The court denied that request because the record did not show that an email address used for Chinh Do belonged to Do, and because the complaint had not been shown to have been served on Do.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed as to Do for failure to serve him on time. It also ordered Johnson to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to follow the court’s orders. A written response was due May 24, 2022, and the court set a hearing and case management conference for June 7, 2022.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order on April 4, 2022. The order denied the motion for administrative relief but did not decide whether the case would be dismissed or whether sanctions would be imposed.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-09162
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed a motion for administrative relief asking the court to order the defendants to provide three available dates for a joint site inspection and to extend the deadline for that inspection to April 22, 2022.
Reasons for Denial
The court denied the motion. First, documents supporting the request included email correspondence from Johnson’s counsel’s firm to an Outlook email address that was said to belong to defendant Chinh Do. The record did not show that the email address belonged to Do. Second, the record did not show that Do had been served with the complaint. The only filed proof of service showed service on T&V Investment, Inc.
Orders to Show Cause
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—that is, explain—to avoid dismissal of the case as to Do for failing to serve the complaint on time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court also ordered Johnson to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with court orders. The order noted that the court had previously required Johnson to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to serve the complaint within 60 days after filing, and that the court had repeatedly addressed failures by Johnson and his counsel to comply with deadlines.
Johnson’s written response was due May 24, 2022. The court set a show-cause hearing for June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., and scheduled a case management conference for the same time.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the motion for administrative relief, ordered the two explanations described above, and set the hearing and case management conference. The order did not state that the case had been dismissed or that sanctions had been imposed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.