Essex Insurance Company v. SEGA Ventures, LLC, CV413-253. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190425a70
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . In 2015, the District Judge resolved plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Doc. 71. After three years passed without any activity, he directed plaintiff to explain the lack of action or face dismissal. Doc. 72. Plaintiff timely responded and indicated its contention that several issues left open by the disposition of its summary judgment motion could not be addressed before the conclusion of underlying state litigation. See doc. 73. That repor
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . In 2015, the District Judge resolved plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Doc. 71. After three years passed without any activity, he directed plaintiff to explain the lack of action or face dismissal. Doc. 72. Plaintiff timely responded and indicated its contention that several issues left open by the disposition of its summary judgment motion could not be addressed before the conclusion of underlying state litigation. See doc. 73. That report..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, Magistrate Judge.
In 2015, the District Judge resolved plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Doc. 71. After three years passed without any activity, he directed plaintiff to explain the lack of action or face dismissal. Doc. 72. Plaintiff timely responded and indicated its contention that several issues left open by the disposition of its summary judgment motion could not be addressed before the conclusion of underlying state litigation. See doc. 73. That report reflected counsel's expectation that the underlying case would "be tried in August of 2018" and, pending that disposition, plaintiff would "renew is [sic] summary judgment motion." Id. at 2.
Another year has passed without any discernable activity in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to this Order within seven days and SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing courts' power "to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief."). If the underlying litigation remains pending, plaintiff's response should explain the progress of that litigation and provide an updated expectation of its conclusion.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
