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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
