Hawkins v. Monsanto Company

E.D. Missouri

Hawkins v. Monsanto Company

DecidedOctober 7, 2025

Docket1:20-cv-00132

StatusUnknown

This text of Hawkins v. Monsanto Company (Hawkins v. Monsanto Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hawkins v. Monsanto Company, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD HAWKINS, and ) JAMES NEISES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00132-SNLJ ) MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Order to Show Cause. [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff James Neises’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw on July 6, 2021. [Doc. 9]. Since then, Neises has neither filed pleadings nor appeared through counsel. Co-plaintiff Edward Hawkins pursued his claims and, following a settlement, dismissed the claims with prejudice on August 19, 2025. [Docs. 14, 15]. On September 23, 2025, the Court ordered Neises to show cause by October 6, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 19]. The Court warned Neises that failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause would result in a dismissal with prejudice without further notice. [Id. at 2]. The deadline for Neises to respond to the Order to Show Cause has passed. He has neither responded nor requested additional time to do so. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order to Show [Doc. 19] and herein, Neises’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. See Garrison v. International Paper Co., 714 F.2d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The district court has inherent power, acting on its own initiative, to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order” and may do so “on its own initiative.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff James Neises’s claims against all defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered. SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2025.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, “ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD HAWKINS, and ) JAMES NEISES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00132-SNLJ ) MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Order to Show Cause. [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff James Neises’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw on July 6, 2021. [Doc. 9]. Since then, Neises has neither filed pleadings nor appeared through counsel. Co-plaintiff Edward Hawkins pursued his claims and, following a settlement, dismissed the claims with prejudice on August 19, 2025. [Docs. 14, 15]. On September 23, 2025, the Court ordered Neises to show cause by October 6, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 19]. The Court warned Neises that failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause would result in a dismissal with prejudice without further notice. [Id. at 2]. The deadline for Neises to respond to the Order to Show Cause has passed. He has neither responded nor requested additional time to do so. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order to Show [Doc. 19] and herein, Neises’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. See Garrison v. International Paper Co., 714 F.2d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The district court has inherent power, acting on its own initiative, to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order” and may do so “on its own initiative.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff James Neises’s claims against all defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered. SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2025.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, “ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hawkins v. Monsanto Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-monsanto-company-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack