Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norton v. Esurance Property and Casualty Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 19, 2017

Miyah Norton, Plaintiff,
v.
Esurance Property and Casualty Company, Defendant.

          Elizabeth A. Stafford United States Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [24]

          Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

         I. Introduction

         This is a breach of contract case against an insurance provider. From August 2016 to January 19, 2017, Plaintiff was non-responsive to Court orders and discovery requests. Pending before the Court is defendant-insurance provider's Motion to Dismiss [24]. For the following reasons the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion without prejudice. However, if the Plaintiff again disobeys Court orders or discovery requests, the Court will dismiss this case.

         II. Facts

         This case involves a motor vehicle accident on February 10, 2015, in Detroit, Michigan. Dkt. No. 1, p. 9 (Pg. ID 9). Miyah Norton (“Plaintiff”) claims to have been a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and operated by LaTasha Crimes. At the time of the accident, Ms. Crimes was insured by Esurance Property and Casualty Company (“Defendant”). Following the accident, Plaintiff alleged numerous injuries. Id., p. 10 (Pg. ID 10). Plaintiff applied for benefits for household chore services, home care services, transportation costs, outstanding medical care costs, etc. Id.

         When Defendant refused to award the Plaintiff benefits, Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action. This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County on January 5, 2016. Dkt. No. 1, p. 8 (Pg. ID 8). On January 27, 2016, Defendant removed to federal court. Id.

         According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff repeatedly ignored attempts to obtain a recorded statement regarding the accident, prior to the current litigation. Dkt. No. 24, p. 4 (Pg. ID 226). Since the litigation has commenced, Plaintiff remains inconsistent and nonresponsive. On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition. Id., p. 5 (Pg. ID 227). After multiple attempts to reschedule the deposition, the Court signed a stipulated order compelling the Plaintiff to attend her own deposition on August 5, 2016. Dkt. No. 14. As best as the Court can tell, the Plaintiff obeyed that stipulated order and appeared for deposition questioning.

         After the Plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled independent medical exam, the Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff's attendance. Dkt. No. 15. On August 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stafford granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel and required the Plaintiff to attend an independent medical exam and also to provide her own transportation. Dkt. No. 22. On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff again failed to attend her own independent medical exam. Dkt. No. 24-15 (Pg. ID 259).

         On November 1, 2016, Defendant filed this current Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 24. The Plaintiff had until November 23, 2016 to timely respond to the motion. See LR 7.1(e)(1)(B). The Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline. On December 22, 2016 this Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Dkt. No. 26. The Court's order required the Plaintiff to file a response by December 29, 2016. Id. The Plaintiff missed this deadline. The Plaintiff has not filed anything on the docket since August 19, 2016.

         On January 5, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Following that hearing, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay Defendant $375.00 in sanctions and to produce to the Plaintiff, in person, at another hearing on January 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 30. The Plaintiff complied with both Court orders.

         The Court will also acknowledge that the Plaintiff did attend one prior independent medical exam for the Defendant, and the instant motion relates to a second one.

         III. Analysis

         “Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C), a district court may sanction parties who fail to comply with its orders in a variety of ways, including dismissal of the lawsuit.” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d 1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)). “The use of dismissal as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery has been upheld because it accomplishes the dual purpose of punishing the offending party and deterring similar litigants from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.