Sloth and Failure to Follow Court Orders Requires Dismissa

Failure to Prosecute Suit Required Dismissal

Post 5102

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWWwz_Bc and at https://lnkd.in/gbBNpycD, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

When Litigant Ignores Court Orders its Suit Must Be Dismissed

In Kmart Corporation v. AIG Assurance Company et al, No. EDCV 15-1520-KK-DTBx, United States District Court, C.D. California (June 16, 2025) Kmart sued its insurers for breach of contract and failure to indemnify in a separate lawsuit.

The proceedings encountered multiple delays due to Kmart’s bankruptcy, resulting in a court-ordered stay.

Court’s Stay on Proceedings: On October 25, 2018, the court issued a stay on the case pending the resolution of Kmart’s bankruptcy, with instructions for counsel to provide updates to the court.

Lack of Communication: Kmart did not file timely status reports with the last communication dated December 14, 2022. Consequently, the court issued orders for updates in May and June 2025.

Factors for Dismissal: The court evaluated five factors regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute, including the public’s interest in resolution, management of the docket, potential prejudice to defendants, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Conclusion of Dismissal: Ultimately, the court dismissed the action without prejudice due to Kmart’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the case, thereby closing the matter.

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a status report stating the Chapter 11 Plan was approved, but no effective date was issued, and thus, the stay should remain in effect. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed another status report stating no changes had occurred since the last update. Plaintiff has since been silent.

ANALYSIS

It is well established that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.

In deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, a district court must consider five factors:

1. the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
2. the court’s need to manage its docket;
3. the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
4. the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
5. the availability of less drastic sanctions.

The first two factors – public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket – weigh in favor of dismissal. The failure to prosecute and follow court orders hinders the Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and suggests Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently.

The third factor – prejudice against defendants – also weighs in favor of dismissal.

The fourth factor – public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits – ordinarily weighs against dismissal.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move toward disposition at a reasonable pace and avoid dilatory and evasive tactics.

Plaintiff did not discharge this responsibility despite having been instructed on its responsibilities; granted sufficient time in which to discharge them; and warned of the consequences of failure to do so. Under these circumstances, the policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders or to file responsive documents within the time granted.

The fifth factor – availability of less drastic sanctions – also weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court cannot move the case toward disposition without Plaintiff’s compliance with court orders or participation in this litigation. Plaintiff has shown it is either unwilling or unable to comply with court orders by failing to file responsive documents or otherwise cooperating in prosecuting this action.

Finally, while dismissal should not be entered unless Plaintiff has been notified dismissal is imminent, see West Coast Theater Corporation v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990), the Court has explicitly warned Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.

ZALMA OPINION

Kmart sought damages from its insurers because of a lack of defense or indemnity. That suit became an asset of the bankruptcy estate which asset was either determined to be worthless or not worth the expense needed to succeed. Rather than dismiss the case by the bankrupt estate it did nothing and forced the USDC to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.