Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2022

Cox v. Ford Motor Company

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:21-cv-05386
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cox v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Gilliam ordered Daavon Cox to explain why his two cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Daavon Cox was required to explain why his two cases against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn should not be dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

Cox v. Ford Motor Company involves two cases that Daavon Cox initially filed without a lawyer in state court against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn. The federal court had previously dismissed claims in both cases and allowed Cox to amend them.

Cox did not file amended complaints by the court’s May 27, 2022 deadline. The court therefore required him to explain why the cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to move them forward.

Judge Gilliam ordered Cox to file a statement of no more than two pages by July 11, 2022. The order itself did not dismiss either case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cox v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:21-cv-05386
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
June 15, 2022

Background

Daavon Cox initially filed both actions without a lawyer in Alameda Superior Court. In the first action, Cox sued Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn. In the second action, Cox sued Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn and also listed Elon Musk as an agent or employee of the defendants.

On April 28, 2022, the court granted Ford Motor Company’s motions to dismiss claims in both actions. The court gave Cox until May 27, 2022, to file amended complaints addressing the deficiencies identified in that order. Cox did not file amended complaints in either action.

Order to Show Cause

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order. The court explained that it may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute even without a defendant filing a motion.

The court ordered Cox to show cause—meaning to explain—why the cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Cox was ordered to file a statement of no more than two pages by July 11, 2022.

Disposition

The court issued an order to show cause. It did not, in this order, dismiss either case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.