Plaintiff’s Sloth Results in Dismissal
Post 4977
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gdUshdxW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyiJMWct and at https://lnkd.in/gsCrhtBu and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company moved the USDC to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s Case Management Order (“CMO”).
In Hensley Roosevelt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 2:22-CV-05649, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (January 10, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
After the Plaintiff alleged damage to his home in Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and Hurricane Delta, which impacted the same area on October 9, 2020, Plaintiff, represented by attorney Harry Cantrell, filed suit on October 10, 2022, alleging that his home was insured by State Farm and that State Farm failed to timely or adequately compensate him for covered losses.
Due to plaintiff’s noncompliance with the court’s CMO, the nonresponsiveness of plaintiff’s counsel, and correspondence indicating that plaintiff intended to enroll new counsel, the court ordered that plaintiff provide a status update and enroll new counsel by September 6, 2024, or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
New counsel filed a motion to enroll for plaintiff on September 6 but failed to provide a status update. State Farm filed a status report on September 12, detailing plaintiff’s failures to participate in mediations under the CMO. The following month, it moved to dismiss the suit due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order.
Plaintiff failed to provide his disclosures to State Farm by filing them into the record on December 7, 2024 that were not only untimely but also woefully incomplete. Plaintiff failed to offer any information that would allow State Farm to compute his outstanding damages despite his previous representations that he was prepared to proceed.
State Farm’s records show that it has tendered $166,934 to plaintiff. State Farm then filed a second Motion to Dismiss arguing that the suit must be dismissed due to plaintiff’s inability to follow court orders or proceed under the CMO. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion under the court’s deadlines.
LAW & APPLICATION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, with or without notice to the parties, incident to its inherent powers.
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to engage with the court’s CMO by filing timely, complete, and accurate initial disclosures. The delays at this point amount to years.
Plaintiff made clear now that he is unable to provide State Farm with the information necessary to meaningfully proceed under the CMO or otherwise make good faith attempts at resolving the matter.
Plaintiff’s inability to gather basic information in support of his claims after months of warning shows that he most likely has nothing to back up his suit. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The case was dismissed.
ZALMA OPINION
Some people and their lawyers believe that if they sue an insurance company it will immediately give up and throw money at the plaintiff to go away in fear of a bad faith punitive award. This case establishes that the belief is wrong. State Farm refused to give up because it was sued and two lawyers retained by the Plaintiff failed to follow the rules and the case was dismissed. Sanctions greater than dismissal were appropriate but not imposed.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
