Carra Otto vs Midwestern, LLC, et al
ORDER that Refacciones Neumaticas La Paz, S.A. DE C.V.'s crossclaims for contribution and indemnification it filed against F & H Mine Supply and MidWestern, LLC are dismissed without prejudice. It is further ordered that F & H Mine Supply's third party complaint against International Mine Supply, Inc. is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CARRA OTTO, AS THE SURVIVING
SPOUSE OF RICHARD OTTO, AND
CARRA OTTO AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD OTTO,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00451-MMD-WGC
REFACCIONES NEUMATICAS LA PAZ,
S.A., DE C.V.,
AND ALL RELATED CASES
This is a products liability case. The purpose of this order is to dismiss certain
ancillary claims, following up on a prior order intended to ascertain the status of those
claims (the “Prior Order”). (ECF No. 182.)
The Court first addresses Refacciones Neumaticas La Paz, S.A. DE C.V.’s (“RNP”)
cross-claims for contribution and indemnification it filed against F & H Mine Supply (“F&H”)
and Mid-Western, LLC. (ECF No. 88 at 8-11.) RNP responded to the Prior Order, stating
it had “agreed to dismiss its cross-claims against Mid-Western, LLC, and F&H Mine
Supply, without prejudice, each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.” (ECF
No. 184 at 2.) The Court will therefore dismiss those claims without prejudice.
Next, the Court notes it directed F&H to file a response regarding its third-party
complaint against International Mine Supply, Inc. (“International Mine”) (ECF No. 33).
(ECF No. 182 at 1.) The Court warned F&H in the Prior Order that “failure to file a timely
status report will result in dismissal of its third party complaint against International Mine.”
(Id. at 2.) F&H did not file a timely response.
The Court will dismiss F&H’s third party complaint against International Mine
without prejudice. “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). In addition, “[a]ll federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to
manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.”
F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.
2001) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-44 (1991)). “As a function of this
power, courts can dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney’s fees and
assess fines.” Id. (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45). Moreover, a court may dismiss an
action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court
order). The Court’s Prior Order was clear, and F&H has not complied. The Court will
therefore dismiss F&H’s third party complaint against International Mine
It is therefore ordered that Refacciones Neumaticas La Paz, S.A. DE C.V.’s cross-
claims for contribution and indemnification it filed against F & H Mine Supply and Mid-
Western, LLC are dismissed without prejudice.
It is further ordered that F & H Mine Supply’s third party complaint against
International Mine Supply, Inc. is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED THIS 13th day of March 2020.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?