Judge v. State of California

Background

Defendants City of Sunnyvale and City Manager Kent Steffens removed the case from the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 10, 2021. Four defendants later filed two motions to dismiss. Under the court's local rules, the plaintiff's opposition was due October 1, 2021.

The plaintiff did not file an opposition, seek relief from the court, or otherwise respond during the seven months after the deadline expired. Counsel for the City of Sunnyvale and Steffens contacted the plaintiff's counsel about the missing opposition but received no response. The opinion also states that the plaintiff's counsel later appeared to communicate with defense counsel about a stipulation to continue the initial case-management conference.

Court's Action

The court explained that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It also stated that failing to oppose a dispositive motion—the type of motion that may resolve claims or the case—raises the question whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The court ordered the plaintiff to file a written response by June 13, 2022, and to appear on June 23, 2022, to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court stated that, if the plaintiff failed to file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The court vacated the hearings on the defendants' motions to dismiss that had been scheduled for June 2.

Disposition

This order did not dismiss the action. It required the plaintiff to show cause—give an explanation—why dismissal should not occur and warned that dismissal with prejudice would follow if the written response was not filed on time.