Ramales v. Shaykhlislamova

Background

Ramales filed the complaint on May 15, 2024. The opinion states that Shaykhlislamova was served with the summons and complaint on June 11, 2024, and that her response was due on June 28, 2024. No response was filed, so Ramales moved for a default judgment, which is a judgment requested because the opposing party did not respond.

The court scheduled a hearing on that motion for May 13, 2025. Before the hearing, Shaykhlislamova appeared without a lawyer and asked to postpone the hearing because she was outside the country and needed time to obtain counsel. Because she had appeared and stated that she intended to defend herself, the court denied the motion for a default judgment and postponed the hearing indefinitely. The court also ordered Ramales to serve that order on Shaykhlislamova and file proof of service, which Ramales did.

Current Order

The court stated that, nearly two months later, Shaykhlislamova’s counsel had not filed a formal notice of appearance and Shaykhlislamova had not answered the complaint. The court therefore ordered Ramales to file a letter by July 16, 2025, showing cause—explaining why—the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued an order to show cause; she did not dismiss the case in this order. The court warned that Ramales’s failure to comply with the order, court rules, or other obligations could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties against counsel or the parties, dismissal, or limits on claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence. The opinion states that Ramales remains responsible for prosecuting the case and that the case may be dismissed because of his chosen counsel’s failure to prosecute it.