Zavarce v. Clear Blue Ins. Co.
Zavarce v. Clear Blue Ins. Co.
2023 WL 11885839 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
December 15, 2023
Presnell, Gregory A., United States District Judge
Summary
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to the Plaintiffs' failure to provide responses to discovery requests and comply with court orders regarding Electronically Stored Information. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, reserving jurisdiction to impose sanctions and award attorneys' fees to the Defendant.
Gustavo ZAVARCE and Sandra Jimenez, Plaintiffs,
v.
CLEAR BLUE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
v.
CLEAR BLUE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
Case No: 6:23-cv-922-GAP-DCI
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Signed December 15, 2023
Counsel
Ryan T. Kraus, Kraus Law, PLLC, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.Sara McLaughlin, Julia Grimke Young, Wilson Elser, Orlando, FL, for Defendant.
Presnell, Gregory A., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 This cause came before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Clear Blue Insurance Company (“Defendant”) (Doc. 30).
I. Background
In its Motion, Defendant asserts that over the past four months, Plaintiffs Gustavo Zavarce and Sandra Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) have failed to provide responses to its discovery requests and to comply with the Court's Orders—including an Order to Show Cause. See id.; see also Docs. 27, 28, 29. Additionally, in her Local Rule 3.01(g) certification, counsel for Defendant states that she has attempted to confer with counsel for Plaintiffs three times in the past week but never received a response. Doc. 30 at 6. Consequently, Defendant requests that the Court both dismiss this case and order Plaintiffs to pay Defendant's reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to Defendant's effort “to seek the overdue discovery responses and initial disclosure[s] as well as for filing the instant motion.” Id. at 5-6.
II. Legal Standards
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (“Rule 37”), the Court “may issue further just orders” where a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Further just orders may include orders dismissing the action. Id. Rule 37(b)(2)(C) further states:
Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) provides:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with ... a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision ... operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Id. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is proper only where “the district court finds a clear record of delay or willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.” Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In addition to its power under Rule 41(b), a court also has the inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient disposition of litigation.” Id.
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs’ case is due to be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 37, Rule 41, and the Court's inherent authority. Plaintiffs have failed to provide discovery responses, to prosecute this action, and to comply with the Court's Orders. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed this case and that lesser sanctions would be inadequate to correct Plaintiffs’ conduct. Finally, pursuant to Rule 37, Defendant shall be awarded its fees.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
*2 1. Defendant Clear Blue Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Court reserves jurisdiction to impose sanctions as follows:
a. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs Gustavo Zavarce and Sandra Jimenez pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C).
b. Plaintiffs shall be required to pay Defendant's attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred as a result of Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's Orders to provide or permit discovery.
c. On or before January 10, 2023, Defendant shall file a notice detailing the amount of attorneys’ fees it has incurred as a result of Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's Orders to provide or permit discovery.
d. If Plaintiffs object to the amount of attorneys’ fees outlined in Defendant's notice, they may contest those fees in a written response filed within ten (10) days from the date that Defendant's notice is filed.
e. If Plaintiff objects, Defendant may file a reply in writing within ten (10) days of such a filing.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on December 15, 2023.