Isensee v. Resolute Energy Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-00551
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Isensee v. Resolute Energy Corporation, Judge Torres warned that the case could be dismissed if Isensee failed to follow reporting orders.
John Isensee was required to file status letters and was reminded that failure to do so could lead to dismissal. The order named Resolute Energy Corporation and the individual defendants but did not impose a stated action on them.
What happened
In Isensee v. Resolute Energy Corporation, John Isensee had received extra time to seek attorney’s fees after a related case was resolved.
The court had ordered Isensee to file a status letter every 45 days, but he did not file the required letters beginning May 18, 2020. The order stated that a case may be dismissed when a plaintiff fails to pursue it or follow a court order.
Judge Analisa Torres reminded Isensee of that rule and the court’s authority to dismiss for failure to pursue the case. The order did not dismiss the case or state another specific disposition.
The detailed version
- Isensee v. Resolute Energy Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-00551
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
John Isensee sued Resolute Energy Corporation and several individual defendants, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion states that, on April 2, 2020, the Court granted Isensee’s request to extend the deadline for filing a motion for attorney’s fees until 14 days after the disposition of a related securities-litigation case. The Court also ordered Isensee to file a status letter every 45 days, beginning May 18, 2020.
Failure to File Status Letters
Isensee did not file the May 18, 2020 status letter or the three additional status letters that the Court said were required after that date. The Court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue an action or comply with the federal rules or a court order. The Court also cited authority stating that a district court may dismiss a case on its own for failure to pursue it.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres reminded Isensee of the possible Rule 41(b) dismissal. The order does not state that the case was dismissed, and it does not otherwise identify a granted or denied motion. It ends with “SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.