Cox v. Ford Motor Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05388
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cox v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Gilliam ordered Daavon Cox to explain why two cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Daavon Cox was required to explain why his two cases against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn should not be dismissed without prejudice. The second case also listed Elon Musk as an agent or employee of the defendants.
What happened
In Cox v. Ford Motor Company, Daavon Cox filed two cases against Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn. The court had previously granted Ford’s motions to dismiss and allowed Cox until May 27, 2022, to amend his complaints.
Cox did not amend either complaint by the deadline. The court therefore ordered him to explain, in a statement of no more than two pages due July 11, 2022, why the cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Judge Haywood Gilliam did not dismiss the cases in this order. Instead, he issued orders requiring Cox to show cause why dismissal should not occur.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:21-cv-05388
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 15, 2022
Background
Daavon Cox initially filed both actions without a lawyer in Alameda Superior Court. In the first action, Case No. 21-cv-05386-HSG, Cox sued Ford Motor Company and Edward Welburn, whom the opinion describes as a former Vice President of Global Design for General Motors. In the second action, Case No. 21-cv-05388-HSG, Cox sued Ford and 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 the claims in both cases. The court gave Cox until May 27, 2022, to amend the complaints to address the identified problems and warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal. Cox did not amend either complaint.
Court’s Action
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with a court order. It also explained that a court may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution without waiting for a defendant to file a motion, based on the court’s authority to manage its cases.
The court ordered Cox to show cause—meaning to explain—why both 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. The order did not itself dismiss either case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.