Rivers v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ERICA RIVERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:19cv1092-MHT ) (WO) LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., ) d/b/a Liberty Mutual, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION On December 30, 2019, this lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Erica Rivers against defendant Liberty Mutual, asserting state tort claims related to a dispute over insurance coverage. See Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was represented by attorneys Jennifer Joyce Tompkins, Matthew Munson, and Sherri Mazur. Defendant was represented by Josh Baker and Josh Hess. On May 7, 2021, upon a joint motion filed by the parties (Doc. 32), this case was stayed and administratively closed pending resolution of a related state case. See Order (Doc. 33). Over a year later, on December 22, 2022, attorney Munson withdrew as counsel for plaintiff (Doc. 37),

with the result that only attorneys Tompkins and Mazur still represented plaintiff. On January 25, 2023, counsel for defendant filed a motion for a status conference, explaining that the

related state case had been resolved and asking to discuss proceeding with the federal case. See Mot. for Status Conf. (Doc. 38). Per an order giving notice, the court held an on-the-record status conference on

February 1, 2023, but neither of plaintiff’s attorneys, Tompkins and Mazur, appeared. At the conference, defendant orally moved that this case be dismissed for

want of prosecution. On February 1, 2023, the court entered an order requiring plaintiff’s attorneys Tompkins and Mazur to show cause in writing, by February 17, 2023, as to why

the defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution should not be granted, the stay lifted, the case reopened, and this case dismissed for want of prosecution. No response was filed. It has long been established that a court has the

authority to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order, a rule which is reflected in Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that generally, when a litigant has been given advance warning, dismissal for failing to comply with a court

order is not an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, the court finds that defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted and this case dismissed.

An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 13th day of March, 2023. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE