Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.OtherFiled May 25, 2022

Johnson v. Harbor Blue, Inc.

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:21-cv-06913
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Harbor Blue, Inc., Judge Davila ordered Scott Johnson to explain why his action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson and Harbor Blue, Inc.; the action remained pending subject to Johnson's response and hearing.

What happened

In Johnson v. Harbor Blue, Inc., Scott Johnson sued Harbor Blue, Inc. on September 7, 2021.

The court said Johnson missed the May 24, 2022 deadline to file a notice requesting mediation and did not ask for more time. The court ordered him to respond in writing by June 20 and attend a June 30 hearing to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to pursue it.

Judge Edward J. Davila did not dismiss the action in this order. He warned that the court would dismiss it with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Johnson did not timely respond.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Harbor Blue, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-06913
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
May 25, 2022

Background Scott Johnson filed this action against Harbor Blue, Inc. on September 7, 2021. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Missed deadline Under an earlier court order concerning Johnson's request for administrative relief, May 24, 2022 was the last day to file a notice stating that mediation was needed. Johnson did not file that notice and did not seek relief from the deadline.

Order The court directed Johnson to file a written response by June 20, 2022, and to appear before the court on June 30, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court warned that, if Johnson failed to file the required response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice. This order itself did not dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.