Dupont et al v. Freight Feeder Aircraft Corporation, Inc. et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/12/2016. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/1/2016. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN J. DUPONT and RANDY MOSELEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-256-JPG-DGW

FREIGHT FEEDER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,
INC., L. DAVID BRIDGES, R. DARBY BOLAND,
STEPHEN CARMICHAEL, H. CLIFF SAYLOR,
EDWARD F. EATON, WILL WEEKS and KIM
LITTLEFIELD,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. This matter was
stayed from October 29, 2014, to November 2, 2015, during the pendency of the bankruptcy
proceedings of defendant Freight Feeder Aircraft Corporation Inc. (“Freight Feeder”). When
Freight Feeder emerged from bankruptcy, the Court ordered a telephone status conference on
November 16, 2015, to address the status of this case in light of the proceedings in the bankruptcy
case. At that conference, the plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he would file something within 30 days
to indicate what direction this case should take. No filing was forthcoming.
The Court held another status conference on January 19, 2016, to again attempt to assess
the status of this case. At the conference, the plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he would file a motion
for default judgment “within the next few days.” Ten days have passed since the status
conference, and nothing has been filed. In light of the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to take action it
promised to take to move this case along, the Court has doubts about whether the plaintiffs intend
to pursue this case.

By the same token, Freight Feeder’s counsel was allowed to withdrew from the case in
October 2014, and Freight Feeder neglected to retain substitute counsel in a timely manner.
Freight Feeder also failed to appear for the two aforementioned status conferences set after it
emerged from bankruptcy. It likewise appears Freight Feeder does not intend to pursue its
counterclaims in this case.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the plaintiffs and Freight Feeder to SHOW CAUSE on
or before February 12, 2016, why their respective remaining claims in this case should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the
Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025
(7th Cir. 1995). Failure to respond in a timely manner to this order may result in dismissal of
those claims. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 1, 2016
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

It may, in fact, be a rational decision not to continue this case if Freight Feeder’s debts to the
plaintiffs, if any, were discharged in bankruptcy, and Freight Feeder’s counterclaims against the
plaintiffs were not listed on the appropriate schedule of assets and could be foreclosed by judicial
estoppel.
1

2