Whitaker v. Morsey
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-03263
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Morsey, Judge Seeborg ordered Whitaker to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Whitaker was required to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Morsey faced continued litigation while the court considered whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Morsey, the court said Whitaker had missed a deadline for inspecting the premises and had not filed a required mediation notice or reported a settlement.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain by May 10, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. The court also questioned whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed, citing allegations about whether clients of the Potter Handy firm visited establishments they sued and Morsey’s statement that his business was closed during the alleged visit.
Judge Seeborg stated that the case would be dismissed without further notice if Whitaker did not respond. The order did not decide the claims’ merits or finally dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Morsey · No. 3:21-cv-03263
- Richard Seeborg
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Whitaker filed the complaint on May 3, 2021. The initial scheduling order set August 27, 2021, as the deadline for a joint site inspection of the premises. It also required Whitaker to file a notice of the need for mediation 42 days after that date. The court stated that Whitaker had not met the deadline, filed the notice, or notified the court of a settlement.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—by May 10, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, or failure to move the case forward. The court stated that if Whitaker did not respond, the case would be dismissed without further notice.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court also raised concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s authority to hear the case. It noted allegations in a recently filed complaint by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, including whether clients actually visited each establishment sued. The court also noted that Morsey, who filed his answer without a lawyer, stated that his business was closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic when Whitaker allegedly visited it. The court stated that, if Whitaker continued the lawsuit, it would examine whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause. It did not decide the underlying claims, dismiss the case in this order, or make a final determination about subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Seeborg warned that the case would be dismissed without further notice if Whitaker failed to respond.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.