Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hill

Filing 115

ORDER that defendants are directed to respond to within 14 days of issuance of this order; Mass Mutual may reply within 7 days of filing of response re (106 in 4:15-cv-00184-DMB-JMV) MOTION to Dismiss (MassMutual's Response to Court' ;s December 6, 2017 Order and Renewed Motion to Dismiss) filed by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, (100 in 4:15-cv-00184-DMB-JMV) MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/5/18. Associated Cases: 4:15-cv-00166-DMB-JMV, 4:15-cv-00184-DMB-JMV (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:15-CV-166-DMB-JMV

PURVIS WILLIAM HILL, JR.

DEFENDANT

CONSOLIDATED WITH
PURVIS WILLIAM HILL, JR.

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:15-CV-184-DMB-JMV
DEFENDANTS

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and JOHN
DOES 1–3
ORDER

On November 7, 2017, Candace L. Williamson and Sammy J. Ellis, co-executors of the
Estate of Purvis William Hill, Jr., were substituted for Hill as litigants in these consolidated actions.
Doc. #101. On December 5, 2017, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Mass
Mutual”) filed a renewed motion for summary judgment. Doc. #108. Approximately two weeks
later, Mass Mutual filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Doc.
#114. Neither Williamson (who has been sanctioned repeatedly in this action)1 nor Ellis responded
to either motion.
Given the complexity of the issues presented by Mass Mutual’s motions, Williamson and
Ellis are DIRECTED to respond to the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment
1

See Doc. #112 at 1–5.

within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order.2 Failure to respond to the motions within
the time allowed will likely result in case dispositive sanctions. See Custer v. Pan. Am. Life Ins.
Co., 12 F.3d 410, 415 (4th Cir. 1993) (“If the court were to determine that the plaintiff’s failure to
respond constituted a failure to prosecute, then it could dismiss the action.”); Lediju v. N.Y. City
Dep’t of Sanitation, 173 F.R.D. 105, 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“[A] summary judgment motion may
be granted by default if the facts justify a dismissal for failure to prosecute.”) (collecting cases);
Peck v. NAES Corp., 307 F.R.D. 43, 45–46 (D.D.C. 2014) (where plaintiffs twice failed to respond
to motion for summary judgment, their “failure to prosecute their case supplie[d] an independent
basis for the Court to dismiss”). No extensions of the response deadline will be granted in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of April, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Mass Mutual may reply in support of its motions within seven (7) days of the relevant response.

2