Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00694/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00694-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY GARDNER, et al., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0694-WS-M

 )

FIRST PREMIUM INSURANCE GROUP, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant First Premium

Insurance Group (“First Premium”) to dismiss for failure to prosecute, filed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 22). The motion is based on the following

circumstances, assumed for present purposes to be true:

• the plaintiffs have not made the initial disclosures required by the Rule

16(b) scheduling order to be made by December 22, 2006;

• the plaintiffs have not responded to interrogatories and requests for

production served by First Premium on January 10, 2007;

• the plaintiffs have not responded to the motion for summary judgment filed

by co-defendant Insurance Claims Specialists, Inc. (“ICS”);

• the plaintiffs’ deposition, scheduled for March 15, 2007, was cancelled one

hour before its scheduled start time, when plaintiffs’ counsel notified

defense counsel that he could not locate his clients;

• plaintiffs’ counsel has not returned a telephone call from First Premium’s

counsel placed three days before this motion was filed.

“Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate where there is a clear record of

‘willful’ contempt and an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not

Case 1:06-cv-00694-WS-M Document 25 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

suffice.” Gratton v. Great American Communications, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.

1999). “The severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice ... can be imposed only in the

face of a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Morewitz v.

West of England Ship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, 62 F.3d

1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal quotes omitted). “Dismissal with prejudice is a

sanction of last resort that is to be utilized only in extreme situations.” Id. 

The circumstances related by First Premium, if correct, reflect a disconcerting

nonchalance about this lawsuit, but they do not meet the exacting standard for dismissal

for failure to prosecute. Two of the circumstances may be easily minimized. The

plaintiffs’ failure to respond to ICS’s motion for summary judgment does not concern

First Premium and, in any event, is consistent with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals’

ruling, shortly after the motion was filed, that ICS’s position is the law of the state. The

failure to return a telephone call is bad form, but it hardly distinguishes this case from

hundreds if not thousands of others.

The other three circumstances are more serious, but they cannot — at this juncture

— support First Premium’s motion. First Premium has known for four months that it has

not received initial disclosures, yet it has not sought the Court’s assistance in obtaining

them. Likewise, First Premium has known since approximately February 10, 2007 that

the plaintiffs’ discovery responses were tardy, but it filed a motion to compel only

contemporaneously with its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 21). Finally, First Premium has

known for approximately six weeks that the plaintiffs failed to show for deposition, yet it

has sought neither sanction for that failure nor judicial assistance in rescheduling the

depositions.

First Premium’s effort to resolve these issues without involving the Court are

commendable, but they have deprived the Court of the ability to test the necessary

premise of a Rule 41(b) dismissal that “lesser sanctions would not suffice.” For all that

appears on this record, the plaintiffs would satisfactorily respond to any one or more of

Case 1:06-cv-00694-WS-M Document 25 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 3
1

This is not to say that the plaintiffs’ defalcations will be immaterial to any future

Rule 41(b) motion brought in the event the plaintiffs fail to comply with Court orders

concerning discovery or other matters. They are, however, insufficient on their own to

justify the extreme remedy of dismissal with prejudice.

-3-

the lesser sanctions made available by the discovery rules and the inherent powers of the

Court. Authorizing dismissal on this record would only encourage future litigants to

ignore the policing mechanisms of Rule 37 in hopes of scoring an automatic win under

Rule 41(b), an outcome that would transform dismissal for failure to prosecute from the

“sanction of last resort” to the sanction of first (but delayed) resort. The Court declines to

approve such a reworking of Rule 41(b).1

 For the reasons set forth above, First Premium’s motion to dismiss is denied. 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00694-WS-M Document 25 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3