Northrop Grumman v. Ministry of Defense, et al
Filing
423
ORDER Granting Defendant The Ministry of Defense of The Republic of Venezuela's Motion 410 to Dismiss Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A.'s Claim. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on May 21, 2020. (AW)
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP
SYSTEMS, INC., formerly known as
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
PLAINTIFF
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF
v.
Civil No. 1:02cv785-HSO-RHW
THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
DEFENDANT
THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP
SYSTEMS, INC.
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA’S MOTION [410] TO DISMISS INTERVENOR
PLAINTIFF PODHURST ORSECK P.A.’S CLAIM
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant The Ministry of Defense of the Republic
of Venezuela’s (“Ministry”) Motion [410] to Dismiss Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst
Orseck P.A.’s Claim. Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A. has not filed a
response, and the time for doing so has passed. Because the Court finds that
Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A. has not prosecuted its claims against the
Ministry and has ignored numerous Court orders, the Ministry’s Motion [410] to
Dismiss should be granted, and Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A.’s claim
should be dismissed.
1
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 6
I. BACKGROUND
A.
The parties’ contract
On November 19, 2003, the Ministry signed a retention agreement with
Scruggs Law Firm (“Scruggs”) and Intervenor Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck P.A.
(“Podhurst Orseck”), to represent it in the present dispute between the Ministry and
Plaintiff Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.,
now known as Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (“Huntington Ingalls”). Def. Ex. B
[93-2].
The firms engaged in settlement negotiations with Huntington Ingalls. Mem.
in Supp. [411] at 2. Huntington Ingalls and Scruggs represented to the Court that
the parties had settled the case, leading to the entry of an Order [65] on October 5,
2005, which dismissed Huntington Ingalls’s claims with prejudice and retained
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Order Dismissing Case [65]; Am. Order of
Dismissal [66]. The Ministry then filed a Motion [68] to Vacate Orders [65, 66] on
the basis that Scruggs did not have the authority to reach a settlement. Mot. to
Vacate [68] at 3.
The Scruggs attorneys then sought Leave to Withdraw as Counsel and
Intervene as Plaintiffs, arguing that they were authorized to settle on behalf of the
Ministry and should be awarded $20,000,000.00 in damages. Mot. to Withdraw and
Intervene [79]. Podhurst Orseck subsequently sought Leave to Withdraw as
Counsel and filed a joinder to Scruggs’ Motion to Intervene. Mot. to Intervene [91]
2
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 6
at 1. The Court granted the Motion to Intervene on January 25, 2006, and both
Scruggs and Podhurst Orseck proceeded as Intervenor Plaintiffs. Order [95] at 7.
The Court ultimately denied the Ministry’s Motion to Vacate, finding that
Scruggs and Podhurst Orseck were authorized to settle and noting that they should
be paid a fee in accordance with the retention agreement. Opinion [116] at 10.
Scruggs and Podhurst Orseck then sought entry of final judgment, Mot. for Entry of
J. [122], which was denied when the Ministry appealed this Court’s Order [117] to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Order [147]; see Notice of
Appeal [127]. The Fifth Circuit vacated the purported settlement agreement and
remanded to this Court. USCA J. [153] at 1; USCA Opinion [154] at 19.
In the eleven years following remand from the Fifth Circuit, Podhurst Orseck
has filed nothing in this case in support of its claim. It has not responded to the
Court’s twenty-seven orders requesting status reports from the parties since 2012,
nor has it participated in telephone conferences held on July 8, 2019, and April 7,
2020. See Text Only Order, July 24, 2012 (status report); Text Only Order, Oct. 13,
2012 (status report); Text Only Order, Feb. 5, 2013 (status report); Text Only Order,
Mar. 20, 2014 (status report); Text Only Order, Aug. 18, 2014 (status report); Text
Only Order, Feb. 27, 2015 (status report); Text Only Order, May 11, 2015 (status
report); Text Only Order, Aug. 21, 2015 (status report); Text Only Order, Oct. 16,
2015 (status report); Text Only Order, Jan. 14, 2016 (status report); Text Only
Order, April 18, 2016 (status report); Text Only Order, Aug. 1, 2016 (status report);
Text Only Order, Nov. 1, 2016 (status report); Text Only Order, Jan. 20, 2017
3
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 4 of 6
(status report); Text Only Order, April 14, 2017 (status report); Text Only Order,
July 17, 2017 (status report); Text Only Order, Aug. 28, 2017 (status report); Text
Only Order, Oct. 2, 2017 (status report); Text Only Order, Dec. 27, 2017 (status
report); Text Only Order, Feb. 19, 2018 (status report); Text Only Order, March 6,
2018 (status report); Text Only Order, May 2, 2018 (status report); Text Only Order,
July 10, 2018 (status report); Text Only Order, Sep. 11, 2018 (status report); Text
Only Order, Dec. 10, 2018 (status report); Text Only Order, Feb. 27, 2019 (status
report); Text Only Order, April 2, 2019 (status report); Min. Entry, July 8, 2019
(telephone conference); Min. Entry, April 7, 2020 (telephone conference). Indeed,
Podhurst Orseck has never even filed its own intervenor complaint, instead merely
relying on Scruggs’ Intervenor Complaint which the Court has dismissed. See
Agreed Order of Dismissal [408].
The Ministry has now filed the instant Motion [410] to Dismiss Podhurst
Orseck’s claim based upon its failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this
Court’s Orders. Mot. to Dismiss [410]. Podhurst Orseck has not responded, and the
time for doing so has passed.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute or to obey a Court order under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss the action sua
sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). The Court must be able
to clear its calendar of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or
4
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 5 of 6
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief, to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases. Id. Such a “sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue
delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of
the District Courts.” Id. at 629-30. Dismissal is especially warranted when a “clear
record of delay or contumacious conduct by plaintiff exists.” Johnson v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:14-CV-926-HTW-LRA, 2016 WL 7976117, at *1 (S.D.
Miss. Sept. 13, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Johnson v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:14CV926 HTW-LRA, 2016 WL 7976124 (S.D.
Miss. Sept. 30, 2016) (quoting Day v. Allstate Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 1110, 1113 (5th Cir.
1986)).
Here, there has been a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct by
Podhurst Orseck. Podhurst Orseck has made no contact with the Court and taken
no action in the case for eleven years, although it has been ordered to file twentyseven status reports and participate in two telephone conferences. This
demonstrates a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct warranting
dismissal of Podhurst Orseck’s claim, which the Court will dismiss without
prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant The
Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela’s Motion [410] to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
5
Case 1:02-cv-00785-HSO-RHW Document 423 Filed 05/21/20 Page 6 of 6
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Intervenor
Plaintiff Podhurst Orseck, P.A.’s claim against The Ministry of Defense of the
Republic of Venezuela is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 21st day of May, 2020.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?