From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edquist v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Nov 18, 2015
Civil Action No. 15-13262-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 15-13262-LTS

11-18-2015

YANA EDQUIST, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Yana Edquist filed the operative Amended Complaint in this action on October 19, 2015. Doc. No. 11. On November 2, 2015, Defendant Jackson National Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 13. Under the Local Rules, the plaintiff had fourteen days to oppose the defendant's motion to dismiss, L.R. 7.1(b)(2), making her opposition due on November 16, 2015. To date, plaintiff has made no filing opposing the motion or requesting an extension of time to oppose the motion.

The Court now Orders the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss by November 30, 2015. Should the plaintiff fail to file a response to the motion to dismiss by that date, she faces dismissal of her claims due to failure to prosecute and failure to obey this Court Order.

"The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute" is well-established and "is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 41(b); Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2002). "[A] litigant who ignores case-management deadlines does so at his peril." Tower Ventures, 296 F.3d at 45-46 (quoting Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998)). "Although dismissal ordinarily should be employed only when a plaintiff's misconduct is extreme, . . . disobedience of court orders, in and of itself, constitutes extreme misconduct (and, thus, warrants dismissal)[.]" Id. at 46 (internal citation omitted) (citing Cosme Nieves v. Deshler, 826 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1987)).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that by the close of business on November 30, 2015, plaintiff shall respond to the motion to dismiss. Failure to respond to the motion to dismiss may be grounds for dismissal for failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin

Leo T. Sorokin

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Edquist v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Nov 18, 2015
Civil Action No. 15-13262-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Edquist v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:YANA EDQUIST, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Date published: Nov 18, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 15-13262-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2015)