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.
Unjust Enrichment is an Non-Contract Remedy
Post 5158
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gv2iv_St and at https://lnkd.in/gdqVihMa, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When an Insurer is Defrauded it Should Sue For Fraud Only
MONY Life Insurance Company v. Bernard R. Perez, No. 23-10770, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (July 23, 2025) resulted in a decision that allows an insured of a Disability Insurance policy to successfully defraud his insurer.
The case involved a dispute between MONY Life Insurance Company and Bernard R. Perez, an ophthalmologist, over a disability insurance contract. Perez was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011 and began receiving monthly disability benefits from MONY. However, MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and discontinued payments in 2018.
FACTS
In 1987, ophthalmologist Bernard R. Perez formed a for-profit medical practice in Tampa, Florida. Soon thereafter, in June 1988, Perez applied for, and, in September 1988, was ...
USDC Bends Over Backwards to Give a Pro Se Plaintiff Some Causes of Action
Post 5157
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g9Q_P2tQ and at https://lnkd.in/g6HPdF9q, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When You Represent Yourself in Litigation You Have a Fool for a Lawyer
Plaintiff Gordon Clark, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant Olga L. Orengo and her auto insurance carrier, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (“Hanover”), related to a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Orengo. Plaintiff alleged that Orengo was at fault for the accident, but Hanover has refused to accept liability. In Gordon Clark v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-348 (SVN), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (July 22, 2025)
Claims and Motions
Plaintiff has brought eight claims against both Defendants and a ninth claim against Hanover for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights under federal and state law. Defendants have both moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint in full for failure to state a claim. The ...
Arson by Insured’s Management Voids Coverage
Post 5156
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwkA76x5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBekGhfK and at https://lnkd.in/gwReRCKz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Corporate Owners are not Innocent Co-Insureds
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwkA76x5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBekGhfK and at https://lnkd.in/gwReRCKz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Arson by Insured’s Management Voids Coverage
Post 5156
Arson for Profit by Corporate Entity Management Voids Policy
Following a fire that destroyed The Press Bar and Parlor in St. Cloud, Minnesota the insurer denied coverage after its determination that Andrew Welsh – a controlling officer of the insured intentionally set the fire and submitted a false proof of loss.
In Timeless Bar, Inc., doing business as The Press Bar and Parlor; Horseshoe Club, LLC; Jessie Welsh v. Illinois Casualty Company, No. 24-2245, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
