Johnson v. Siripakdi
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-08675
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Siripakdi, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.
Scott Johnson, whose failure to meet a mediation-related deadline prompted the order; the action was not dismissed at this stage, but the court warned that it would dismiss the action with prejudice if he did not respond.
What happened
In Johnson v. Siripakdi, Scott Johnson did not file a required notice seeking mediation by the April 8, 2022 deadline and did not ask for more time. The order does not state the underlying claims.
The court ordered Johnson to submit a written explanation by June 13, 2022, and to appear on June 30, 2022, to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to move it forward.
Judge Edward J. Davila did not dismiss the case 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 submit the required written response.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Siripakdi · No. 5:21-cv-08675
- Edward Davila
- May 24, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed the action on November 8, 2021. Under the district court’s General Order 56, the parties’ deadline for conducting a joint site inspection was February 25, 2022. Johnson’s deadline to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was April 8, 2022.
Johnson did not file that notice and did not ask the court for relief from the April 8 deadline. The opinion does not identify the action’s underlying claims.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss a case on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Johnson to file a written response by June 13, 2022, and to appear before the court on June 30, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Johnson was ordered to show why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it issued an order requiring Johnson to explain why dismissal should not occur. The court stated that if Johnson failed to file a written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.