Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03004/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03004-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Dees
Plaintiff
Pace Industries, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION 

GREG DEES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-3004

PACE INDUSTRIES, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

On this 7th day of February 2006, the above referenced matter

comes on for consideration. The Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. On December 30, 2005, the defendant, Pace Industries,

Inc. (“Pace”) filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

Prosecute (doc. 18). In its motion, Pace states that:

* The plaintiff, Greg Dees (“Dees”) failed to respond to

its discovery requests in a timely manner.

* Pace filed a motion to compel discovery with the Court,

which was granted on December 13, 2005. And, 

* Dees has failed to abide by this Court’s December 13,

2005 Order requiring Dees to provide initial disclosures and

complete discovery responses within ten (10) days. 

2. Pace’s motion seeks dismissal of Dees’ complaint with

prejudice pursuant to Rules 37 and 41 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and requests sanctions against the plaintiff to

reimburse the defendant for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

for the filing of Pace’s motion and brief. 

3. On January 24, 2006, Joseph Hughes, the attorney for

Case 3:05-cv-03004-JLH Document 23 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Dees, responded to Pace’s motion. In his response, Hughes states

that he has been unable to locate Dees, and requests thirty (30)

days to continue to locate Dees. 

4. The Court held a telephone conference call on January

26, 2006. During the conference call, the Court allowed

plaintiff’s counsel until Friday, February 3, 2006 to secure the

presence of Dees for another telephone conference call. The Court

noted that if plaintiff’s counsel is not able to comply,

plaintiff’s complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. 

5. According to communications between Joseph Hughes and

Court personnel on Friday, February 3, 2006, Hughes has not been

able to locate Dees and is unable to comply with this Court’s

January 26, 2006 directive. 

6. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

Prosecute (doc. 18) should be, and it hereby is, granted.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37 and 41. Further, the Defendant will be allowed ten

(10) days within which to submit a petition for attorneys’ fees

and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:05-cv-03004-JLH Document 23 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>