Paul A. Cassidy, as personal representative of Estate of Kathleen Anne Cassidy Van Dame v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-13357
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Paul A. Cassidy,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-13357

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Mag. Judge David R. Grand

Defendant.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [5]

Plaintiff Paul A. Cassidy, as personal representative of Estate of Kathleen Anne Cassidy Van Dame, filed the complaint in this case on September 24, 2025, in the 16th Circuit Court for Macomb County. (ECF No. 1.) The case was removed to this Court on October 22, 2025, by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (Id.) On November 26, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was served on Plaintiff via CM/ECF. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s response to the motion was due within 21 days after service of the motion. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(2)(A). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion, and the applicable period to file his response has run.

Because Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss, the Court issued an order to show cause on January 26, 2026, ordering Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by February 4, 2026, why the Court

should not dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 41.2. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the

Court’s order to show cause. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and his failure to prosecute the

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 41.2; Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–33 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

“provides for dismissal of an action where the plaintiff has failed ‘to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.’” Bonanno v. Virginia, No. 22-5546, 2023 WL 8867912, at *2 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991)), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 850 (2024), reh’g denied, 144 S. Ct. 1133 (2024). When contemplating the dismissal of a case under Rule 41(b), the Court considers the following four factors:

(1) Whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Bay Corrugated Container, Inc. v. Gould, Inc., 609 F. App’x 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999)). “While none of these factors is dispositive, a case may be dismissed by a district court where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 591 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363;

Little v. Yeutter, 984 F.2d 160, 162 (6th Cir. 1993)). Here, the first factor favors dismissal. “To show that a party’s failure to comply was motivated by bad faith, willfulness, or fault, the

conduct ‘must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.’”

Mager v. Wis. Cent. Ltd., 924 F.3d 831, 837 (6th Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 705 (6th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s show cause order, nor Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In fact, Plaintiff has not made any filings in this case since it was removed in October, 2025. “Although his conduct

does not establish bad faith, it nevertheless shows willfulness and fault in that he was at best extremely dilatory in not pursuing his claim[s], which indicates an intention to let his case lapse.” Schafer, 529 F.3d at

739. The second factor also favors dismissal. “Assessing prejudice for

purposes of Rule 41(b) requires the district court to look to the ‘waste[d] time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation which [the non-dilatory party] was legally obligated to provide.’” Rodriguez v. Hirshberg

Acceptance Corp., 62 F.4th 270, 277–78 (6th Cir. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 2005)). Here, Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s conduct. Defendant

began litigating the case and filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) The third factor favors dismissal. Whether the plaintiff was warned about the possibility of dismissal “is . . . a key consideration when

determining whether a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing a case pursuant to Rule 41(b).” Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 1998). In this case, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause “why the Court should not dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2.” (ECF No. 8, PageID.55.) The

Court’s order to show cause constituted a warning to Plaintiff that his cause could be dismissed. The fourth factor also favors dismissal because the Court

considered lesser sanctions prior to this dismissal order. The Court issued an order to show cause. Additionally, Plaintiff has had ample time

to make filings in this case. Finally, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court therefore concludes that it is not an abuse of discretion

to dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court’s order and for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 41.2. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2026 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 11, 2026. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager