UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT ROSS,

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0333-P

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT 

ATTENDANTS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Ross initiated this action. ECF 

No. 1. However, Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 3.1(c), which 

clearly states that the complaint “must be accompanied” by a separate 

certificate of interested persons. N.D. TEX. CIV. R. 3.1(c). 

“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file 

a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts 

to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or 

comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.” Olsen v. 

Maples, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Link v. Wabash 

R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). Having considered the complaint 

and this Court’s practice of strictly enforcing the Local Rules, the Court 

concludes that the Case should be dismissed.1

1This Court, like all of the judges of the Fort Worth Division, has a long and 

consistent history of requiring litigants to strictly adhere to the Local Rules. See, e.g., 

Six Flags Ent. Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. 4:21-CV-00670-P, 2021 

WL 2064903, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) (Pittman, J.) (dismissing lawsuit without 

prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) requiring local counsel); United 

States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-CV-688-A, 2013 WL 11332537, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 

2013) (McBryde, J.) (holding that Local Rule 83.10(a) required Austin-based attorney 

to designate local counsel); Robert Cook & Associates, Inc. v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 

7:09-CV-141-O, 2010 WL 11619707, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2010) (O’Connor, J.) 

(admonishing defense counsel that “disregard of the Local Rules is burdensome for 

those required to analyze and adjudicate Defendant’s motion” and ordering counsel “to 

file a statement notifying the Court . . . why they failed to comply with the local rules 

and whether this failure should result in the forfeiture of their right to practice in the 

Northern District of Texas”); Harper v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-318-Y, 2009 

Case 4:22-cv-00333-P Document 6 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 750
2

The Court thus ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice.2

SO ORDERED on this 20th day of April, 2022.

WL 4858050, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2009) (Means, J.) (denying motion to declare 

class certification motion timely because plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 23.2 

and “once on this Court's docket the case becomes subject to this Court's local rules”). 2Should this dismissal without prejudice function as a dismissal with prejudice in 

this case, see, e.g., Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1992) 

(discussing instances where dismissal without prejudice functions as with prejudice, 

such as when a suit would be time-barred if plaintiff were forced to refile), Plaintiff 

must notify the Court in a timely, appropriately argued, and supported motion for 

leave to proceed without local counsel.

Case 4:22-cv-00333-P Document 6 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 751