Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 18, 2026

Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund v. Shakopee Chevrolet, Inc.

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-03866
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund v. Shakopee Chevrolet, Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff did not prove service and failed to prosecute.

Who this affects

The case brought by Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund against Shakopee Chevrolet, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice; the court did not decide whether unpaid contributions were owed.

What happened

Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund sued Shakopee Chevrolet, Inc. to recover unpaid fringe-benefit contributions and other amounts allegedly required by a collective bargaining agreement.

A magistrate judge ordered the Fund to file proof that it had served the summons and complaint, or that Shakopee Chevrolet had waived service. The Fund did not file the required proof and did not object to the recommendation to dismiss the case.

Judge Menendez found no clear error, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund v. Shakopee Chevrolet, Inc. · No. 0:25-cv-03866
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
May 18, 2026

Background

Minneapolis Auto Dealers Benefit Fund filed the action seeking unpaid fringe-benefit contributions and additional amounts allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement to which Shakopee Chevrolet, Inc. was allegedly bound.

On March 13, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered the Fund to file proof that it had served the summons and complaint, or a waiver of service, within twenty days. The Fund did not file that proof.

Recommendation and Review

Judge Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means failing to take required steps to move a case forward. Neither party filed objections.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. Judge Menendez found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation.

Disposition

The court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The order also directed that judgment be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.