Free Order to Show Cause - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01102-RPM-BNB

Document 73

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 04-cv-01102-RPM-BNB MINTECH STAFFING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL WIRELESS, INC., GREGORY CASSIDY, MELISSA CASSIDY, and F. COOPER WARD, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises in connection with my order dated October 13, 2005, granting the plaintiff an extension of time to and including November 8, 2005, within which to cause substitute counsel to enter an appearance. No entry of appearance has been received. This action is related to Global Communications Consulting Group v. Mintech Staffing, L.L.C., Case No. 02-cv-01910-RPM-BNB (the " Global Comm case" In the Global Comm case, ). Mintech received a judgment in its favor and against Global Communications on Mintech' s counterclaim, in the amount of $115,695 plus interest. The judgment was entered in favor of Mintech on February 19, 2004. Mintech caused a writ of garnishment to be served on Gregory Casady in an attempt to locate assets to satisfy its judgment against Global Communications. Mr. Casady failed to respond to the writ of garnishment, and the Clerk of the Court entered a default against him in

Case 1:04-cv-01102-RPM-BNB

Document 73

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 2 of 3

connection with the writ of garnishment on September 24, 2004. Mintech moved for the entry of a default judgment against Mr. Casady. In the meantime, this action was commenced on May 28, 2004, alleging causes of action to pierce the corporate veil and for fraudulent transfers, all in a further attempt to collect on Mintech' judgment entered in the Global Comm case. s While the motion for default judgment on the writ of garnishment was pending, on July 26, 2005, Mintech' counsel moved to withdraw in the Global Comm case and also in this s irreconcilable differences on how this legal case.1 The motions to withdraw recited as their bases " matter should proceed and our client' inability to meet the financial requirements of litigation." s On August 25, 2005, I granted the motion of Mintech' counsel to withdraw from its s representation in this case. The order allowing withdrawal states: Because the plaintiff is a corporation, it must be represented by counsel. Flora Const. Co. v. Fireman' Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d s 413, 413-14 (10th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the plaintiff shall cause substitute counsel to enter his or her appearance on or before September 8, 2005. On September 7, 2005, Mintech requested an extension of time, through October 8, 2005, within which to find substitute counsel. That request was granted by a minute order dated September 9, 2005. On October 11, 2005, Mintech sought a second extension of time to find substitute counsel, requesting to and including November 8, 2005. That request also was granted,

The motion for default judgment on the writ of garnishment ultimately was denied because Mintech failed to prove that Mr. Casady was indebted to Global Communications on the date the writ of garnishment was served and failed to establish the amount of any such indebtedness. See Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 29, 2005 (in Case No. 02-cv-01910), at p.6; and Order, entered October 7, 2005 (in Case No. 02-cv01910)(accepting the Recommendation). 2

1

Case 1:04-cv-01102-RPM-BNB

Document 73

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 3 of 3

although I cautioned Mintech that no further extensions would be allowed. Order, entered October 13, 2005, at p.1. Local rule of practice 41.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, provides: A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown within the time set in the show cause order, a district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice. Mintech has failed to comply with my orders of August 25 and October 13, 2005, requiring it to cause substitute counsel to enter an appearance on or before November 8, 2005, and has failed to prosecute this case in any meaningful way since its counsel was allowed to withdraw on August 25, 2005. It appears that Mintech has abandoned this litigation. IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show cause, if any there be, in writing and on or before November 28, 2005, why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the orders of the court requiring that substitute counsel enter an appearance. The plaintiff is cautioned that its failure to respond through counsel to this order to show cause within the time allowed will result in the recommendation that the case be dismissed. Dated November 14, 2005. BY THE COURT: /s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge

3