Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-cv-00054-HFF.
January 18, 2010
ORDER
This is a breach of contract case. On December 30, 2009, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to let the Court know whether or not it wished to dismiss this action. On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff informed the Court that it wishes to pursue the action and asked that the Court grant it thirty more days to secure local counsel. Inasmuch as Plaintiff has had well over one year to secure local counsel, the thirty-day request is hereby DENIED.
Instead, local counsel for Plaintiff must make an appearance in this case not later than February 1, 2010. Failure to do so will be construed by the Court as yet another indication that Plaintiff has no real plans nor any real desire to prosecute this action and instead wishes for the Court to dismiss the action. Thus, the Court will enter judgment accordingly.
In fact, except for Plaintiff's January 15, 2010, letter, every indication has been that Plaintiff has abandoned this suit, failed to prosecute it, and wishes for it to be dismissed, including (1) Plaintiff's failure to abide by the Court's notice, dated January 9, 2009, to secure local counsel, (2) Plaintiff's failure to abide by the Court's order, dated April 29, 2009, to submit a proposed consent scheduling order, and (3) Plaintiff's failure to file a response, due on June 29, 2009, to Defendant Mike Ariss's motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.