Johnson v. M & T San Mateo Properties, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-08339
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. M & T San Mateo Properties, LLC, Judge White ordered a response to a proposed $150 sanction for missed deadlines.
Scott Johnson and/or his counsel faced a proposed $150 monetary sanction for failing to comply with court deadlines; the order also set a deadline for responding.
What happened
In Johnson v. M & T San Mateo Properties, LLC, the court had previously ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed because he missed two court deadlines. Johnson instead filed a stipulation of dismissal, which the court approved, but he did not respond to the separate order by its deadline.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why it should not impose a $150 monetary sanction on him and/or his counsel for repeatedly missing court deadlines. The response was due June 28, 2022. The court said it would impose the sanction without another order if it did not receive a response.
Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on June 21, 2022. The order proposed sanctions but did not itself impose them.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. M & T San Mateo Properties, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-08339
- Jeffrey White
- June 21, 2022
Background
On June 9, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff Scott Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failing to comply with two court-set deadlines. The court required a specific response by June 17, 2022, and warned that anything other than a specific response would not be sufficient.
Johnson filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 13, 2022, and the court approved it. The court did not discharge, or cancel, the order to show cause. Johnson then did not file the required response by June 17.
Ruling
The court issued another order to show cause asking why monetary sanctions of $150 should not be imposed on Johnson and/or his counsel for repeated failures to comply with court deadlines. The response was due June 28, 2022. The court stated that if it did not receive a response, it would impose the sanctions without further order.
The order did not impose the $150 sanction at that time. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.