V. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00697

Exhibit B

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

EXHIBIT B Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.'s Motion for Order to Show Cause DA 404478.3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JASON MARTELL and § LAURA MARTELL, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § 1:18-CV-1020-RP § WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., § § Defendant. § ORDER Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association ("Wells Fargo") filed a motion to dismiss this action on December 4, 2018. (Dkt. 4). The deadline to file a response passed on December 18, 2018. As of the date of this order—over two months since the deadline—Plaintiffs Jason Martell and Laura Martell ("Plaintiffs") have still filed no response. "A response to a dispositive motion shall be filed not later than 14 days after the filing of the motion." W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-7(e)(2). "If there is no response filed within the time period prescribed by this rule, the court may grant the motion as unopposed." (Id.). Federal courts have the authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting a court to dismiss an action if the plaintiff "fails to prosecute or to comply with. . . a court order"). Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate if there is a "clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff" and if "lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice." Callip v. Harris Cty. Child Welfare Dep't, 757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "A district court may dismiss sua sponte, with or without notice to the parties." Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 319 (5th Cir. 1982). 1 Since Wells Fargo removed this case to federal court on November 29, 2018, (Dkt. 1), there is no indication in the record that Plaintiffs have taken any steps to advance or participate in this litigation. This order gives notice to Plaintiffs that the Court intends to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute their claims unless Plaintiffs can show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing, on or before March 29, 2019, as to why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. See Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (district courts may dismiss cases for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order). SIGNED on February 27, 2019. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2