Martinez et al v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC

Filing 754

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by District Judge Kea W. Riggs. The Court DIRECTS Mr. Prieto to file his closing documents within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. Alternatively, if Mr. Prieto's claims have not been settled, Mr. Prieto SHOULD SHOW CAUSE why his claims should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute his claims within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. (ve)

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 754 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
______________________

IRMA MARTINEZ, FELIPE MARTINEZ,
LARRY MUNN, and
LEE HUNT, as personal representative
of the estate of Abel Portillo, deceased,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

No. 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR

CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS,
LLC, An Ohio Limited Liability Company
Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER upon a sua sponte review of the docket as to Mr. Prieto’s prosecution of
his claims.
At the June 15, 2022, pretrial conference, the parties represented to the Court that the claims
brought by Mr. Prieto had been settled. Therefore, Mr. Prieto did not participate in the bench trial.
However, at the trial, defense counsel stated that Mr. Prieto was unavailable, they were unable to
contact him, and a release was not yet signed. See Doc. 723, Trial Tr. at 1146. If Mr. Prieto has
settled his claims, the Court DIRECTS Mr. Prieto to file his closing documents within fourteen
(14) days of the entry of this order.
Alternatively, if Mr. Prieto’s claims have not been settled, Mr. Prieto SHOULD SHOW
CAUSE why his claims should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute his
claims within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 41(b) … has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 754 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 2

actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the … court’s orders.”). This
case was filed on September 8, 2017. Mr. Prieto obtained separate counsel, who entered his
appearance on March 6, 2018. Although Mr. Prieto apparently participated in discovery, he has
not participated in this case’s extensive motions practice, or the July 2022 trial. Therefore, it
appears several years have gone by without Mr. Prieto prosecuting his claims, at least as it appears
on the Court’s record. The Court finds this delay to be extraordinary. If Mr. Prieto fails to
respond to this order or fails to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed, the Court
may dismiss his claims without prejudice and without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2