Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03198/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03198-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Atlantic Industries Corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Compass Bank, an Alabama Corporation 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-3198-PHX-DGC

ORDER

By order dated October 26, 2006, the Court warned Plaintiff that new counsel must

appear by November 17, 2006, and that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to

comply with the order. Plaintiff has not complied. No new counsel has appeared, and

Plaintiff, as a corporation, cannot appear in federal court without attorney representation.

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Coloney, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsel, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202

(1993). Moreover, as noted in the Court’s previous order, Plaintiff has provided insufficient

disclosure statements, failed to respond to document production requests, and failed to appear

at depositions through its principals, Messrs. William G. Wadman and Phillip Black.

The Court concluded in its previous order that a warning and monetary sanctions

would be less drastic than dismissal. Now that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order,

however, the Court concludes that dismissal is the only reasonable alternative. Plaintiff has

demonstrated that it will not comply with the Court’s orders and the rules of procedure even

when sanctioned and warned of possible dismissal. Having considered the factors set forth

Case 2:05-cv-03198-DGC Document 37 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), and having attempted to

procure Plaintiff’s compliance through less drastic sanctions, the Court concludes that

dismissal with prejudice is necessary.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

2. In light of this sanction, the Court’s monetary sanction imposed at paragraph

7 of its October 26, 2006 order is withdrawn. The Court concludes that dismissal with

prejudice is a sufficient sanction for Plaintiff’s conduct.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 28th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03198-DGC Document 37 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2