MOSS
v.
CELEBRITY CRUISES INC
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.
Karen Moss brought a civil action against Celebrity Cruises Inc. in 2018. After her attorney withdrew and she failed to comply with court orders to either retain new counsel or proceed pro se, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for abandonment of prosecution.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice under its inherent authority to manage its docket and because the plaintiff abandoned prosecution of the suit by failing to comply with explicit court orders regarding representation.
[1] A district court may dismiss a case on its own initiative if a plaintiff abandons prosecution of the suit.
[2] Courts possess the inherent power to manage their affairs to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Moss's attorney was granted permission to withdraw on December 20, 2023. The court ordered Ms. Moss to retain new counsel or file notice of intent…
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 Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
Court directed Ms. Moss that she must, by January 18, 2024, either (a) retain new counsel and have that counsel file a notice of appearance with the Court, or (b) file a notice with the Court stating that she wishes to represent herself (i.e., proceed pro se). The Court's order warned Ms. Moss that her “failure to timely retain new counsel, or file a notice regarding proceeding pro se, may result in her pleadings being stricken and being held in default.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) Ms. Moss failed to meet the deadline.
On January 23, 2024, the Court entered an order to show cause, directing Ms. Moss to explain why she failed to comply with the prior Court order and again instructing Ms. Moss to either retain new counsel or file a notice of her intention to proceed pro se on or before January 30, 2024. The show cause order also warned Ms. Moss that her failure to do so would result in a dismissal of this action without further notice. Ms. Moss failed to meet the deadline.
A district court may dismiss a case, on its own initiative, if a plaintiff abandons its prosecution of the suit. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) with Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). Courts are vested with this inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” and “to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link, 370 U.S. 630–31.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the show cause order and has failed to retain new counsel or file a notice of her intention to proceed pro se. Therefore, as previously warned, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice, and directs the Clerk of the Court to close the matter.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 2, 2024.
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Copies via U.S. mail and email to: Karen Moss 7606 Northwest Chesley Drive Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 [email protected]