Judge Mihm dismisses case after plaintiff misses response deadline

Judge Michael M. Mihm dismissed this case on July 15, 2025, after the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants' motions to dismiss by the July 10 deadline. The court entered judgment the same day.

Later that afternoon, at 5:23 p.m., the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time to respond. The plaintiff claimed that counsel was unaware of the response deadline despite the court having sent email notice to the correct address.

Judge Mihm denied the motion for extension on July 21, 2025, citing the untimeliness and the fact that judgment had already been entered. The dismissal remains in effect. The plaintiff must now file a separate motion to vacate the judgment if it wants to reopen the case.

The record does not show any such motion filed yet. The court has made clear that failure to respond to dismissal motions can result in automatic dismissal and that late requests for extensions after judgment face a high bar.

The case remains closed unless the plaintiff successfully moves to set aside the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 or a similar standard. The docket number and court are not publicly available at this time, limiting further detail.

The key issue is whether the plaintiff can overcome the dismissal by convincing the court to reopen the case despite missing the response deadline and the late extension request.