Le v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-07428
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Le v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Judge Davila dismissed the action with prejudice because Le did not prosecute it or respond to the court’s order.
Rick Le and Transamerica Life Insurance Company; the action was dismissed with prejudice and the file was closed.
What happened
Le v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company was removed from Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court on September 23, 2021. After service of process, Rick Le took no further action in the case.
The court ordered Le to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The deadline was August 18, 2022, and the court warned that failing to respond would lead to dismissal with prejudice. Le did not file a response by the deadline.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and directed the clerk to close the file. Judge Davila issued the order on August 30, 2022.
The detailed version
- Le v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company · No. 5:21-cv-07428
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Rick Le sued Transamerica Life Insurance Company in state court. The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 23, 2021. The opinion states that service of process occurred soon afterward, but that Le took no further action in the case.
Order to Show Cause
On August 9, 2022, the court ordered Le to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court required a written response by August 18, 2022, and warned that failure to respond by that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice. Le did not file the required response.
Ruling
The court stated that it has inherent power to dismiss an action on its own to ensure the orderly and timely handling of cases. It dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.