Bloomquist v. Barclaycard Services
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 29 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/26/2016. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DARRELL BLOOMQUIST,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
BARCLAYCARD SERVICES,
Case No. 2:15-CV-912 TS
Defendant.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has not
responded to Defendant’s Motion.
On June 7, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty
days to cure certain deficiencies in his original Complaint. Plaintiff failed to do so. On July 20,
2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to respond within thirty days
as to why this case should not be dismissed. Again, Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court noted
in its Order that failure to do so would result in dismissal without further notice.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states, “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or
to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an
action or of any claim against the defendant.” “The sanction of dismissal with prejudice for
failure to prosecute is a severe sanction, a measure of last resort.” 1 In considering whether to
dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b), the Court looks to:
1
Ecclesiastes 9:10-11, 12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1
(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the other party; (2) the amount of interference
with the judicial process; (3) the litigant’s culpability; (4) whether the court warned
the party in advance that dismissal would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and
(5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions. 2
Having considered the above factors, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is
warranted. First, Plaintiff’s actions have prejudiced Defendant by causing delay and mounting
attorney’s fees. Second, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s orders interferes with the
judicial process. Third, Plaintiff’s intentional noncompliance with two of the Court’s orders
speaks to his culpability. Fourth, the Court warned Plaintiff in its Order to Show Cause that his
failure to respond would result in dismissal. Finally, in light of the Court’s multiple unsuccessful
attempts to require Plaintiff conform to the judicial process, dismissal with prejudice appears to
be the only appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and dismiss this case with
prejudice under Rule 41(b).
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 29) is GRANTED. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
2
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and
citations omitted).
2
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?