800 NRP v. Nevada State Bank
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/2/11 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
800 NRP,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
vs.
NEVADA STATE BANK,
Case No. 2:10-CV-1006 TS
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nevada State Bank’s Motion to Dismiss and
Alternative Motion for Sanctions.1 For the reasons provided below, the Court will grant
Defendant’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s case.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw “due to [P]laintiff’s
failure to comply with discovery requests which has prevented him from fulfilling his legal
representation and [P]laintiff’s failure to pay agreed upon legal fees.”2 Plaintiff’s counsel was
1
Docket No. 16.
2
Docket No. 12.
1
allowed to withdraw from this case on April 28, 2011.3 In its Order granting withdrawal, the
Court stated as follows:
New counsel must file a Notice of Appearance within twenty-one (21)
days after the entry of this order unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Pursuant
to Utah DUCivR 83-1.3, no corporation, association, partnership or other artificial
entity may appear pro se, but must be represented by an attorney who is admitted
to practice in this court.
A party who fails to file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel or Notice of
Appearance as set forth above, may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1), including, but not limited to dismissal or default
judgment.4
On November 9, 2011, this Court issued an order to show cause, instructing Plaintiff to
respond within fourteen days and inform the Court of the status of the case and its intentions to
proceed.5 In its Order to Show Cause, the Court once more warned Plaintiff that “continued
failure to comply with the orders of the Court will result in sanctions, including terminating
sanctions.” To date, Plaintiff has failed to inform the clerk of the appointment of another
attorney nor has a Notice of Appearance been filed on behalf of Plaintiff.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states: “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.”
3
See Docket No. 15.
4
Id. at 1-2.
5
Docket No. 20.
2
The Tenth Circuit has identified certain factors to consider in determining whether a
dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted. These factors include: (1) the degree of actual prejudice
to the defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of
the plaintiff; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would
be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.6
In the instant action, Defendant has been prejudiced by being required to continue to
appear, litigate, and attempt to conduct discovery in a case where Plaintiff refuses to participate.
Defendant is actually prejudiced by the cost and expenditure required to continue to litigate a
claim with an uncooperative Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s continued refusal to abide by Court orders also
constitutes a continuing interference with the judicial process. Plaintiff, as a corporation, cannot
appear before the Court without counsel, and yet, Plaintiff appears to be unwilling to obtain new
counsel. This failure is directly attributable to Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff is directly culpable for
the delay in this case. Plaintiff’s unwillingness to participate in discovery led to the withdrawal
of its previous counsel and Plaintiff’s unwillingness to obtain new counsel prevents the Court
from hearing its claims.
The Court has warned Plaintiff on multiple occasions that continued noncompliance with
the Federal and Local Rules and orders of the Court would result in sanctions, including
terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to bring itself into
compliance with the Court’s orders and applicable rules. This Court made clear in its Order to
Show Cause that failure to file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel or Notice of Appearance
6
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).
3
would result in sanctions, including terminating sanction. Moreover, the Court finds that any
lesser sanction is unlikely to be efficacious where Plaintiff has demonstrated a history of
unwillingness to cooperate in discovery, or abide by court orders and Federal and Local Rules.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Compel and
for Sanctions (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case
forthwith.
DATED December 2, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
4
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?