ERIC NEWBERG
v.
WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS AND MELINDA MASTERS; BILLY DEWAYNE BURR V. WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS AND MELINDA MASTERS; CHRISTOPHER A. LORCH V. WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS AND MELINDA MASTERS
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 held that the plaintiffs' failure to respond to an order to show cause, after previously failing to comply with court orders, warrants dismissal for failure to prosecute.
[1] A case may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order.
[2] Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order, particularly after a warning, is generally not an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Plaintiffs' failure to respond to the Court's order indicates that they have abandoned their remaining claims. This failure to prosecute warrants dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Establishes that failure to respond to a court order to show cause constitutes abandonment warranting dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a partial grant of summary judgment for defendants, plaintiffs were ordered to file a pretrial narrative statement and consider settlement. …
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 Rule 41(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 22, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 58.) The Court directed Plaintiffs to file with the Court and serve upon Defendants a pretrial narrative statement. (Id. at 23.) The statement was due by December 8, 2025. The Court also advised the parties to “strongly consider settlement discussions,” and to alert the Court if they engaged in such talks. The Court told Plaintiffs that, upon motion, it would consider requesting counsel to represent them at settlement discussions and/or trial. (Id.)
Plaintiffs did not file a pretrial narrative statement, advise that they intended to engage in settlement discussions, or seek the appointment of counsel. On December 10, 2025, the Court determined that Plaintiffs had abandoned this action and instructed them to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with its order. (Doc. 59.) The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if they did not timely and satisfactorily explain their apparent abandonment of the case. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs have neither responded to the Court's order to show cause nor asked for additional time to do so.
Plaintiffs' failure to respond to the Court's order indicates that they have abandoned their remaining claims. This failure to prosecute warrants dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R.
2
Civ. Pro. 41(b) (allowing for the involuntary dismissal of an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his claims or follow a court order). And dismissal under Rule 41(b) “upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close this case.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 7, 2026.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge
3