MICHELLE ADAMS
v.
MARK STUART ROHER AND MARK S. ROHER, P.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
[1] A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's action sua sponte for failure to comply with the rules or any order of the court, especially when the litigant has been forewar…
[2] A plaintiff's failure to attend a mandatory Rule 16(b) conference, after being explicitly ordered to do so and warned of potential sanctions, constitutes failure to prose…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss a plaintiff's action for failure to comply with the rules or any order of the court . . . especially where the litigant has been forewarned.”
Establishes the legal authority and standard for sua sponte dismissal of a case for failure to comply with court orders, particularly when the plaintiff has been warned.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe pro se plaintiff brought a legal malpractice case and subsequently attempted to transfer venue and stay proceedings, which the court denied. The p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the file. Pro se Plaintiff Michelle Adams, who resides in New York, brought this legal malpractice case against Defendants Mark Stuart Roher and Mark S. Roher, P.A. (Doc. 1). After Defendants filed their counterclaims and the Court set an in-person Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) conference, Plaintiff suddenly decided she did not want to prosecute her case in this District anymore. Citing various irrelevant reasons, Plaintiff moved for a venue transfer to the Southern District of New York. (Docs. 28, 29). The Court denied that motion. (Doc. 31). And anticipating future frivolous motions as a pretext for skipping the scheduled Rule 16(b) conference, the Court further advised Plaintiff that
regardless of whatever future motion she might file, she was required to attend the Rule 16(b) conference in-person unless ordered otherwise. (Id.).
As anticipated, Plaintiff did not simply accept her chosen forum and prosecute her case. She instead petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the Court to transfer her case to the Southern District of New York. See In re Michelle Adams, Case No. 25-14338. She then moved this Court to stay this case pending her mandamus petition. (Doc. 38). The Court also denied that motion. (Doc. 40). In doing so, it observed that Plaintiffs attempts to transfer the case “appear[ed] to be nothing more than an attempt to evade the Rule 16(b) conference after likewise failing to participate in the parties' Rule 26(f) meeting.” (Doc. 40 at 4-5). The Court once again reminded Plaintiff that “unless we specifically advise otherwise, she must attend the Rule 16(b) conference as scheduled” and cautioned her that “[f]ailure to do so may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with our orders—without further notice.” (Id. at 5).
Despite the Court's clear instructions that Plaintiff must attend the Rule 16(b) conference, she did not. Instead, on the eve of the conference, she contacted the Court, defiantly advising that she would not be attending the conference, and she intended to move to voluntarily dismiss her case. (Doc.
2
41). The Rule 16(b) conference proceeded as scheduled, despite Plaintiffs absence. The Court never excused Plaintiff from attendance.
Plaintiff failed to participate in the Rule 26(f) meeting. (Doc. 39). She defied two separate Court Orders instructing her to attend the Rule 16(b) conference unless ordered otherwise. And the Court advised Plaintiff that those very actions may result in dismissal of her claims. True to its word, the Court now dismisses Plaintiffs case without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 331 F. App'x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009) ("Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss a plaintiff's action for failure to comply with the rules or any order of the court . . . especially where the litigant has been forewarned[.]").
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Because the complaint is dismissed, Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 44, 49) are DENIED as moot. 3. The Court will address Defendants' counterclaims by separate Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 8, 2026.
Sheri Polster Chappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3