Legion Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

D. Delaware

Legion Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

190 F. Supp. 2d 724, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5547, 2002 WL 480321

CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware

DecidedFebruary 25, 2002

DocketCiv.A 99-356-GMS

StatusPublished

This text of 190 F. Supp. 2d 724 (Legion Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Legion Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 724, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5547, 2002 WL 480321 (D. Del. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

SLEET, District Judge.

On February 6, 2002, the court issued an order directing the plaintiff, Legion Insurance Company (“Legion”), to show cause as to why its Motion for Default Judgment should not be denied and the case closed for failure to prosecute. The deadline for Legion to show cause was February 21, 2002. To date, Legion has not responded or otherwise contacted the court. Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint.

Although the sanction of dismissal is a drastic one, it is appropriate when a litigant acts in “flagrant bad faith” or with “callous disregard” of the court’s orders. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 n. 18 (3d Cir.1995). The court may also impose this sanction under its inherent power “to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in [its] calendar[.]” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).

The court believes that Legion has shown “callous disregard” for the court’s orders. Indeed, the February 6, 2002, order to show cause was the second time the court has asked Legion to notify it of the status of this case. On July 6, 2001, the court wrote a letter to Legion inquiring as to the status of the remaining defendants. (D.I. 37.) Legion failed to respond to the letter. Now, Legion has failed to respond to February 6, 2002, order to show cause. The fact that Legion has twice failed to respond to the reasonable requests of the court in a timely fashion shows a pattern of callous disregard.

Additionally, Legion’s delay in responding is creating congestion in the court’s calendar. The court issued its first request for information on July 6, 2001. Six months later, on February 6, 2001, the court issued an order to show cause. Thus, this case has clogged the court’s docket for over six months while the court has awaited a response from the plaintiff.

Legion has shown “callous disregard” for the inquiries of the court and is unnecessarily congesting the court’s calendar. Thus, the court finds itself with no other choice than to bring to an end a matter that Legion appears unwilling to prosecute.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Legion’s Motion for Default against defendants Charles Astor, Mojac Enterprises, Elan Services/Elan, Inc., and Craig Industries (D.I. 24) is DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 41.1.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

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

ORDER

SLEET, District Judge.

On February 6, 2002, the court issued an order directing the plaintiff, Legion Insurance Company (“Legion”), to show cause as to why its Motion for Default Judgment should not be denied and the case closed for failure to prosecute. The deadline for Legion to show cause was February 21, 2002. To date, Legion has not responded or otherwise contacted the court. Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint.

Although the sanction of dismissal is a drastic one, it is appropriate when a litigant acts in “flagrant bad faith” or with “callous disregard” of the court’s orders. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 n. 18 (3d Cir.1995). The court may also impose this sanction under its inherent power “to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in [its] calendar[.]” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).

The court believes that Legion has shown “callous disregard” for the court’s orders. Indeed, the February 6, 2002, order to show cause was the second time the court has asked Legion to notify it of the status of this case. On July 6, 2001, the court wrote a letter to Legion inquiring as to the status of the remaining defendants. (D.I. 37.) Legion failed to respond to the letter. Now, Legion has failed to respond to February 6, 2002, order to show cause. The fact that Legion has twice failed to respond to the reasonable requests of the court in a timely fashion shows a pattern of callous disregard.

Additionally, Legion’s delay in responding is creating congestion in the court’s calendar. The court issued its first request for information on July 6, 2001. Six months later, on February 6, 2001, the court issued an order to show cause. Thus, this case has clogged the court’s docket for over six months while the court has awaited a response from the plaintiff.

Legion has shown “callous disregard” for the inquiries of the court and is unnecessarily congesting the court’s calendar. Thus, the court finds itself with no other choice than to bring to an end a matter that Legion appears unwilling to prosecute.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Legion’s Motion for Default against defendants Charles Astor, Mojac Enterprises, Elan Services/Elan, Inc., and Craig Industries (D.I. 24) is DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 41.1.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 F. Supp. 2d 724, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5547, 2002 WL 480321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legion-insurance-v-continental-casualty-co-ded-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack