Concordia Trust Power of Attorney for Andre Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court notes that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on 6/15/2012. Thus, not only has Plaintiff failed to comply with a valid court order, Plaintiff is not prosecutin g this action. The court does not know the bases for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order and to prosecute this action. In any event, finding no record of purposeful delay or contumacious conduct, the court dismisses without prejudice this action, which is an appropriate sanction for the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's Status Report Order. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/27/2012) (tln)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CONCORDIA TRUST POWER OF
ATTORNEY FOR ANDRE LINDSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-1804-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 19, 2012, the court issued an Order Requiring Attorney Conference and Status
Report (“Status Report Order”) in this case. In the Status Report Order, the court ordered the parties
to confer to (1) consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, and the possibilities of
prompt settlement or resolution of the case; (2) make or arrange for the initial disclosures required
by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) develop a proposed discovery plan
that indicates the parties’ views and proposals on the matters set forth in Rule 26(f)(1)-(4). No later
than August 20, 2012, by 5:00 p.m., the parties were to submit a Status Report (“Report”) that set
forth the discovery plan proposed by the parties and any objections a party had to initial disclosures
required by Rule 26(a)(1). Plaintiff has taken no steps or action to confer as the court ordered, and
the court has not received any input from Plaintiff. To date, the court has only heard from
Defendant.
The court believes that dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is appropriate because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s Status
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1
Report Order of July 19, 2012. Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure
to prosecute or failure to follow orders of the court. This authority flows from the court’s inherent
power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases. Boudwin
v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626 (1962)). The court’s decision to dismiss an action, however, is materially affected by whether
the dismissal is to be with or without prejudice. “A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if
the failure to comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness
and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing the action.”
Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation in footnote omitted).
The Fifth Circuit has set forth a number of lesser sanctions that a court is to consider before
it dismisses with prejudice: “Assessments of fines, costs, or damages against the plaintiff or his
counsel, attorney disciplinary measures, conditional dismissal, dismissal without prejudice, and
explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a
court’s undoubted right to control its docket.” Boudwin, 756 F.2d at 401 (quoting Rogers v. Kroger,
669 F.2d 317, 321-22 (5th Cir. 1982)). The parties and their counsel were specifically warned that
sanctions, including dismissal, could be imposed for failure to comply with the court’s Status Report
Order. Sanctions are appropriate in this case.
The court notes that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which was
filed on June 15, 2012. Thus, not only has Plaintiff failed to comply with a valid court order,
Plaintiff is not prosecuting this action. The court does not know the bases for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the court’s order and to prosecute this action. In any event, finding no record of
purposeful delay or contumacious conduct, the court dismisses without prejudice this action, which
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2
is an appropriate sanction for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s Status Report Order.
It is so ordered this 27th day of August, 2012.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3
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?