IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FIDELITY BANK, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0031-WS-M

 )

KEY HOTELS OF BREWTON, LLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause why Defendants 

Should Not be Held in Contempt or Otherwise Deemed in Default (doc. 53).

On September 17, 2015, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 49) that authorized 

defendants’ counsel of record to withdraw based on a fundamental breakdown in attorney-client 

communications. The September 17 Order issued very clear directives to defendants, Anand 

Patel and Key Hotels of Brewton, LLC. With respect to Patel, the September 17 Order stated as 

follows: “Defendant is ordered to notify the Court in writing on or before October 8, 2015, 

whether he has obtained new counsel (and, if so, to provide the name and contact information for 

same) or whether he intends to represent himself henceforth.” (Doc. 49, at 2.) As to defendant 

Key Hotels, the September 17 Order explained that artificial entities cannot represent themselves 

in federal litigation and ordered Key Hotels, “on or before October 8, 2015, to notify the Court 

in writing of the name, address and telephone number of the substitute counsel it has retained to 

represent its interests in this action.” (Id. at 3.) The Clerk’s Office mailed copies of the 

September 17 Order to Patel and Key Hotels at their addresses of record.

In the wake of the September 17 Order, defendants have filed nothing. To the 

undersigned’s knowledge, they have contacted neither chambers’ staff nor the Clerk’s Office to 

make arrangements to satisfy the terms of the September 17 Order. They have simply remained 

silent, in violation of the clear terms of that ruling. The September 17 Order admonished 

defendants that noncompliance could result in dire consequences, with the following bold-type 

Case 1:15-cv-00031-WS-M Document 54 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 2
-2-

warning: “Defendants are cautioned that failure to comply with this Order in a timely 

manner may result in entry of default or other sanctions against them upon motion by 

plaintiff.” (Doc. 49, at 3.)

Given defendants’ disregard of that warning and the resulting delays to the orderly 

administration of justice herein, the Court believes it would be entirely defensible to impose the 

sanction of default at this time.

1

 Should a default be entered, the Court would promptly take 

under submission plaintiff’s Motion to Establish Sale Procedures (doc. 48) for the subject hotel 

property. Nonetheless, plaintiff has requested that the undersigned afford Patel and Key Hotels 

one final opportunity to come into compliance, reasoning that defendants “have maintained a 

level of contact and communication with counsel for Fidelity” in recent weeks and that 

defendants’ noncompliance “has not yet caused Fidelity any meaningful expense.” (Doc. 53.)

Under the circumstances, the Court agrees that plaintiff’s proposed course of action is 

appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion to Show Cause (doc. 53) is granted. Defendants are 

ordered, on or before November 9, 2015, to show cause why default judgment should not be 

entered against them for their willful noncompliance with the September 17 Order. What this 

means is this: Unless defendants submit written filings or before the deadline that (i) provide a 

satisfactory explanation for their failure to comply with the September 17 Order in a timely 

manner, (ii) comply with that Order in full, and (iii) evince an intent to participate in this matter 

in a conscientious and diligent manner henceforth, the Court will exercise its inherent power to 

enter a default against them, then proceed to take up plaintiff’s motion to have the hotel property 

auctioned. If defendants wish to be heard and to defend their interests in this litigation, the time 

is now. Defendants should expect no further lenience based on their unrepresented status.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 “A court may impose sanctions for litigation misconduct under its inherent 

power” upon a finding of bad faith. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 

F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). “A party demonstrates bad faith by delaying or disrupting the 

litigation or hampering enforcement of a court order.” In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 

1291, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal marks omitted).

Case 1:15-cv-00031-WS-M Document 54 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 2