Kayla Harris v. Metalsa Structural Products, Inc.
This text of Kayla Harris v. Metalsa Structural Products, Inc. (Kayla Harris v. Metalsa Structural Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00178-DJH-CHL KAYLA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. METALSA STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The undersigned held an in-person show cause hearing on March 31, 2026, in accordance with the Court’s March 2, 2026, show cause order. (DN 28.) The hearing was digitally recorded. Aaron W. Marcus and Colleen Parga appeared on behalf of Defendant Metalsa Structural Products, Inc. Pro se Plaintiff Kayla Harris did not appear or otherwise contact the Court in advance of the hearing. This case is at a standstill due to Plaintiff’s lack of participation. On September 26, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s former counsel leave to withdraw
and ordered Plaintiff Kayla Harris to either notify the Court she intended to proceed pro se or to cause new counsel to enter an appearance on or before December 1, 2025. (DN 22.) The Court served the order on Plaintiff via certified mail to the address provided by withdrawing counsel and via e-mail. (DNs 22, 23.) The Court received a return receipt reflecting that the mailing was delivered and signed for by someone with the last name Harris. (DN 24.) Despite this, Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order (DN 22). On December 22, 2025, the Court entered an additional order giving Plaintiff through January 30, 2026, to either cause new counsel to enter an appearance or to notify the Court that she intended to proceed pro se. (DN 25.) The Court again served the order on Plaintiff via certified mail and e-mail. (Id.) The Court received a return receipt for its mailing signed by Kayla Harris. (DN 26.) Despite her receipt of the Court’s Order (DN 25), Plaintiff again did not comply. In response to Plaintiff’s noncompliance, Defendant filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause requesting that the Court order Plaintiff to show cause for her failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (DN 27.) In its March 2, 2026, Order, the Court granted Defendant’s motion (DN
27) and ordered Plaintiff to personally appear before the Court on March 31, 2026, at 10:30 AM ET to show cause for her failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders (DNs 22, 25). (DN 28.) The Court’s Show Cause Order was also served on Plaintiff via certified mail. (DN 29.) While the Court does not yet have a return receipt back from that mailing, the online tracking information for the certified mailing reflects that it was delivered to Plaintiff’s address on March 4, 2026. The tracking information is appended as an exhibit to the instant recommendation. Despite this, Plaintiff did not appear at the March 31, 2026, hearing or otherwise contact the Court. Defense counsel indicated that he had heard from Plaintiff via email on March 4, 2026. She emailed him requesting that he give her a call. He did so. He inquired as to whether she had
a lawyer, and she reported that she had one previously but that she had stopped returning her lawyer’s calls. This is consistent with the representations in Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to withdraw. (DN 21.) The Court inquired as to whether Plaintiff had made any statements to counsel with respect to her intentions as to this lawsuit, and counsel indicated that she had not. Despite this conversation, Plaintiff did not appear in Court today. The Court’s orders have repeatedly advised Plaintiff that failure to comply would likely result in the dismissal of her case. (DN 22, at PageID # 87 (“Failure to comply with Court orders or her obligations under the Federal Rules, including those relating to discovery, could result in dismissal of her case.”); DN 25, at PageID # 92 (“ While the Court will give Plaintiff additional time as set forth below to either find new counsel or notify the Court that she intends to proceed pro se, Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of her case.”); DN 28, at PageID # 109 (“Plaintiff Kayla Harris is warned that failure to appear and show cause may result in dismissal of her case.”).) Given that Plaintiff signed for one of the Court’s certified mailings (DN 26) and that the others were delivered to the same address, the undersigned
finds it likely Plaintiff has received all of the Court’s orders. Based on Plaintiff’s repeated failures to respond in any way to these warnings, including her failure to appear before the Court at the instant hearing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has abandoned her case. The inconclusive conversation Plaintiff had with defense counsel does not change this conclusion because she did not follow this conversation with any contact with the Court, and she failed to appear before the Court today. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district
court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). Although federal courts afford pro se litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to pursue a case. Id. at 110. “Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with three prior orders from the Court. (DNs 22, 25, 28.) The undersigned can conceive of no additional steps that might be taken to apprise the Plaintiff of her need to participate in this action given her disregard of the Court’s prior warnings. Because the alternative is to leave the case to stagnate on the Court’s docket, which would work severe prejudice to Defendant, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with this Court’s orders (DNs 22, 25, 28) including its order to appear today.
Colin H Lindsay, Magistrate Judge United States District Court March 31, 2026
cc: Counsel of record, Pro se Plaintiff (via certified mail to 113 Bradley Bend Road, Leitchfield, KY 42754, and via e-mail to kaylamaeharris6@gmail.com)
Notice Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby files with the Court the instant findings and recommendations. A copy shall forthwith be electronically transmitted or mailed to all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Within fourteen (14) days after being served, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Failure to file and serve objections to these findings and recommendations constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to appeal. Jd.; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kayla Harris v. Metalsa Structural Products, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kayla-harris-v-metalsa-structural-products-inc-kywd-2026.