Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05007/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05007-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2409(a) Quiet Title Action

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

PAUL SCHMIDT and 

ACRO CORPORATION PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 06-5007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and

through MICHAEL OWEN JOHANNS,

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE, FARM SERVICE

ADMINISTRATION, AND TRAVIS STEARMAN DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 7th day of February, 2007, come on for consideration

the following motions:

* Separate Defendant Travis Stearman's Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiff ACRO Corporation (document #24);

* Separate Defendant United States' Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiff ACRO Corporation (document #26);

* the United States' Motion For Summary Judgment (document

#28);

* Separate Defendant Travis Stearman's Motion For Summary

Judgment (document #31); and

* the United States' Motion To Dismiss For Failure To

Prosecute (document #34).

Neither plaintiff has responded to any of the foregoing motions.

1. The Complaint in this matter, filed on January 13, 2006,

seeks judicial review of the action of a federal agency, the Farm

Service Administration, and relief to include the setting aside of a

sale of real property. The case is set for trial on March 19, 2007.

Case 5:06-cv-05007-JLH Document 37 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

On October 20, 2006, plaintiffs' attorney moved for leave to

withdraw from the representation. That motion was granted by Order

dated October 23, 2006. The Order allowed plaintiffs twenty (20) days

to obtain new counsel, and noted that if new counsel was not obtained,

the individual plaintiff Paul Schmidt would be allowed to represent

himself, but plaintiff ACRO Corporation could only be represented by

a licensed attorney.

A copy of the October 23 Order was sent to Paul Schmidt at the

address supplied by his former counsel. Based on the tenor of the

Complaint, the Court believes Mr. Schmidt to be a principal in ACRO

Corporation. The Court, therefore, believes that both plaintiffs were

made aware of the contents of the October 23 Order, yet no attorney

has entered an appearance on behalf of either party.

2. The foregoing circumstances, and the case of Rowland v.

California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993), inform the Court's

decision on the motions to dismiss ACRO Corporation. A corporation

"may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel." 506

U.S. at 202. ACRO Corporation has been given ample time to obtain

counsel, and has not done so. The motions to dismiss its claims will,

therefore, be granted, albeit such dismissal will be without

prejudice, with ACRO's right to refile conditioned upon payment of

costs and attorney's fees reasonably incurred by defendants for work

that will necessarily have to be duplicated upon refiling.

3. The matter is only slightly more complicated as it pertains

to Schmidt, who -- being an individual -- has the right to represent

Case 5:06-cv-05007-JLH Document 37 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

himself. The problem is that he has not done so. The motions for

summary judgment were filed on November 29, 2006. Pursuant to Local

Rule 7.2, Schmidt had eleven (11) days to respond. He has neither

responded, nor asked for an extension of time to respond.

Under these circumstances it would not be improper for the Court

to take up the motions for summary judgment, and resolve them on their

merits. F.R.C.P. 56(c). However, the Court believes it would be

extremely difficult to do so, in a complex case such as this one,

without input from one of the adversarial parties. In addition,

Schmidt's failure to respond to the final motion here under

consideration, the Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute,

suggests that he has lost interest in the case. Yet defendants are

put to the trouble and expense of preparing for trial just as surely

as if plaintiff were ready to go to trial.

The United States suggests that dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P.

41(b) is called for, and the Court agrees. That rule allows the Court

to dismiss "for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute." The Court

will, however, make such dismissal without prejudice, but will

condition Schmidt's right to refile his claim upon payment of costs

and attorney's fees reasonably incurred by defendants for work that

will necessarily have to be duplicated upon refiling. The Court also

finds that the dismissal should encompass Schmidt's claims against

Stearman, since those claims are predicated on there being some

infirmity in the United States' sale of the real property in question

to Stearman.

Case 5:06-cv-05007-JLH Document 37 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Separate Defendant Travis

Stearman's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff ACRO Corporation (document #24)

is granted, and the claims of ACRO Corporation against Travis Stearman

are dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Separate Defendant United States'

Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff ACRO Corporation (document #26) is

granted, and the claims of ACRO Corporation against the United States

are dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States' Motion For Summary

Judgment (document #28) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Separate Defendant Travis Stearman's

Motion For Summary Judgment (document #31) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States' Motion To Dismiss

For Failure To Prosecute (document #34) is granted, and the claims of

Paul Schmidt against both defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05007-JLH Document 37 Filed 02/07/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>