Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a motion to strike on September 15, 2022. Cedric Armstrong-Harris’s response was due September 29, 2022. He did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition, as required by the court’s local rule. Wells Fargo then filed a notice stating that Armstrong-Harris did not oppose the motions.

The court stated that it had already issued two earlier orders requiring Armstrong-Harris to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court also stated that Armstrong-Harris had repeatedly missed court deadlines and had previously been warned that further failures could result in dismissal without further notice.

Order to Show Cause

The court ordered Armstrong-Harris to file, by October 20, 2022, a statement of no more than two pages explaining why dismissal should not be granted, or alternatively why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If he wished to continue the case, he also had to file by that date an opposition to the defendants’ motions or a statement that he did not oppose them.

The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders. It also explained that a federal district court has authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute even without a defendant’s motion. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or motion to strike, and it did not dismiss the case.