Austin v. One Legal LLC

Background

George Jarvis Austin, who was representing himself, did not appear at an October 26, 2022 case management conference held by videoconference. The clerk had sent notice of the conference on September 20, 2022, to the email address Austin had registered with the court’s electronic filing system.

Austin had requested that the conference be continued, asserting that he had not received notice of the conference and was unavailable because of his work schedule. The court had denied his first administrative motion to continue because it was filed too late under the court’s local rules. Austin then filed three identical motions to reschedule. The court stated that his second motion also did not comply with those local rules.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Austin’s argument that notice of the defendant’s appearance was relevant to the clerk’s earlier notice of the conference. The court said Austin should have anticipated the defendant’s appearance because he filed proof of service on October 19, 2022, the same day he received an email from defense counsel notifying him of the defendant’s appearance and intention to attend the conference. The court found that Austin was not prejudiced even if he had not received notice through the electronic filing system because he received notice from counsel that same day.

Austin also sought a disability accommodation to continue the conference. The court explained that the conference was conducted by videoconference, so Austin was not required to appear physically. It concluded that no accommodation was necessary and that his request fell outside the accommodations provided by the court.

Order

Because the conference had already occurred, the court held that Austin’s three later motions to continue or reschedule it were moot. The court nevertheless stated that it was unpersuaded by Austin’s arguments and ordered him to show cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. That rule allows a district court to dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order, but this order only required Austin to respond and did not dismiss the action.

Austin’s response was due by November 18, 2022. The court scheduled a show-cause hearing for December 13, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The order terminated ECF Nos. 52, 54, and 55, which were Austin’s later administrative motions. Judge Trina L. Thompson signed the order.