Failure to Prosecute Suit Required Dismissal
Post 5102
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWWwz_Bc and at https://lnkd.in/gbBNpycD, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
When Litigant Ignores Court Orders its Suit Must Be Dismissed
In Kmart Corporation v. AIG Assurance Company et al, No. EDCV 15-1520-KK-DTBx, United States District Court, C.D. California (June 16, 2025) Kmart sued its insurers for breach of contract and failure to indemnify in a separate lawsuit.
The proceedings encountered multiple delays due to Kmart’s bankruptcy, resulting in a court-ordered stay.
Court’s Stay on Proceedings: On October 25, 2018, the court issued a stay on the case pending the resolution of Kmart’s bankruptcy, with instructions for counsel to provide updates to the court.
Lack of Communication: Kmart did not file timely status reports with the last communication dated December 14, 2022. Consequently, the court issued orders for updates in May and June 2025.
Factors for Dismissal: The court evaluated five factors regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute, including the public’s interest in resolution, management of the docket, potential prejudice to defendants, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.
Conclusion of Dismissal: Ultimately, the court dismissed the action without prejudice due to Kmart’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the case, thereby closing the matter.
On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a status report stating the Chapter 11 Plan was approved, but no effective date was issued, and thus, the stay should remain in effect. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed another status report stating no changes had occurred since the last update. Plaintiff has since been silent.
ANALYSIS
It is well established that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.
In deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, a district court must consider five factors:
1. the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
2. the court’s need to manage its docket;
3. the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
4. the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
5. the availability of less drastic sanctions.
The first two factors – public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket – weigh in favor of dismissal. The failure to prosecute and follow court orders hinders the Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and suggests Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently.
The third factor – prejudice against defendants – also weighs in favor of dismissal.
The fourth factor – public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits – ordinarily weighs against dismissal.
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move toward disposition at a reasonable pace and avoid dilatory and evasive tactics.
Plaintiff did not discharge this responsibility despite having been instructed on its responsibilities; granted sufficient time in which to discharge them; and warned of the consequences of failure to do so. Under these circumstances, the policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders or to file responsive documents within the time granted.
The fifth factor – availability of less drastic sanctions – also weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court cannot move the case toward disposition without Plaintiff’s compliance with court orders or participation in this litigation. Plaintiff has shown it is either unwilling or unable to comply with court orders by failing to file responsive documents or otherwise cooperating in prosecuting this action.
Finally, while dismissal should not be entered unless Plaintiff has been notified dismissal is imminent, see West Coast Theater Corporation v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990), the Court has explicitly warned Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.
ZALMA OPINION
Kmart sought damages from its insurers because of a lack of defense or indemnity. That suit became an asset of the bankruptcy estate which asset was either determined to be worthless or not worth the expense needed to succeed. Rather than dismiss the case by the bankrupt estate it did nothing and forced the USDC to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
(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 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.
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 ...
Excellence in Claims Handling
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Common Problems in a Jewelers’ Block Policy Investigation
If you are not a subscriber you will read from this link until you reach the paywall end of this blog post as the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
This is a taste of the latest Excellence in Claims Handling Article for subscribers to my substack. Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
The History of the Jewelers’ Block Policy
The ‘jewelers’ block policy’ had its origin about 1920, and since that time the policy and the proposal upon which it is based have become more or less standard.
The Inland-Marine Insurance Bureau, of which appellant is a member, prescribes contracts and proposals for such policies that are ...
Self Insurance is Excess Over Primary Insurance
Post 4572
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Employment Plan is Insurance Because it Transferred Risk and Contained Claim, Exclusion, and Priority Provisions.
In Ajay Kolli, & c. et al. v. Kaleida Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 06167, No. 72, New York Court of Appeals (October 22, 2026) Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient in 2011 while serving as an on-call, per diem physician for Kaleida Health. The patient later sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida for medical malpractice.
In 2011, decedent Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient as part of his duties pursuant to an on-call, per diem physician employment agreement with defendant Kaleida Health. The patient subsequently sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida. Dr. Kolli sought indemnity from his primary medical malpractice insurer, MLMIC Insurance Company (MLMIC), as well as his excess insurer Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPIC).
The underlying medical malpractice action settled after Dr. Kolli’s death. Kaleida, MLMIC, and ...
RICO Suit Against Law Firm & Health Care Pros Fails
Posted on October 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
UBER AND FEDEX FIGHT FRAUD
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is Designed to Defeat Fraud Perpetrators
In Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Simon & Simon P.C., et al., Civil Action No. 25-5365, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 13, 2026) Uber Technologies, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation sued attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon, P.C., and several medical professionals and practices under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
They allege the defendants orchestrated a scheme to generate and litigate fraudulent personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and FedEx drivers. Uber and FedEx incurred defense costs and paid settlements on some claims. The court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, finding proximate causation adequately pleaded. Fact discovery is set to close December 21, 2026.
Discovery showed Uber’s...
