Aldrich et al v. Indian River Transport Company et al, No. 3:2018cv00701 - Document 35 (W.D. Ky. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Justin R. Walker on 4/21/2020 Dismissing Case with prejudice. cc: counsel (DLW)

Download PDF
Aldrich et al v. Indian Transport Company et al CaseRiver 3:18-cv-00701-JRW Document 35 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 248 Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY KIMBERLY S. ALDRICH, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-701-JRW INDIAN RIVER TRANSPORT CO., ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE The Court DENIES as moot Indian River Transport Co. and Timothy Sheehan’s summary judgment motion (DN 28). The Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice. OPINION The parties called the Court’s case manager and said this case has settled.1 The Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice by February 21. 2 The parties didn’t file anything. On March 24, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice by April 10.3 Again, the parties didn’t file anything. The Court is well within its discretion to dismiss this case for the parties’ repeated disobedience of its orders.4 This is a “clear record of delay or contumacious conduct” warranting dismissal with prejudice.5 1 DN 33. Id. 3 DN 34. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C). 5 Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:18-cv-00701-JRW Document 35 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 249 The Court considered giving notice that dismissal with prejudice was on the table, even though prior notice was unnecessary due to the parties’ clear record of contumacious conduct. 6 But, giving notice would have been an exercise in futility. The parties disobeyed 2 court orders. They have given no indication that they will suddenly obey a third, even if it did warn of the potential for dismissal with prejudice. More than that, the parties told the Court they settled. They have apparently moved on, even if they haven’t filed the stipulation as the Court twice ordered them to do. Dismissing this case with prejudice is appropriate, notwithstanding any lack of prior notice. April 21, 2020 6 Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th Cir. 1988) (prior notice is not required when the “derelict party has engaged in bad faith or contumacious conduct”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.