Carline v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JESSICA CARLINE 	CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS
24-656-SDD-EWD
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Jessica Carline, who is representing herself, has failed to prosecute her
case and to follow Court orders. Therefore, this case will be dismissed without prejudice
on the Court’s own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
On October 23, 2025, this Court set a December 2, 2025 telephone conference to
discuss the status of this matter following the withdrawal of Carline’s former lawyer, 1 as
Carline was given time to find a new lawyer. Carline was ordered to attend the telephone
conference. 2 Although the telephone conference was held open for twenty (20) minutes,
Carline did not appear, nor did she contact the Court to say that she could not appear. 3
Carline was then ordered to appear and show cause on January 8, 2026 why her claims
in this case should not be dismissed for her failure to appear for the telephone conference
as ordered. 4 Carline was specifically told by the Court that her case could be dismissed
without further notice if she did not appear as ordered for the January 8, 2026 show cause
1 Carline initially failed to appear for the hearing on her counsel’s motion to withdraw, as ordered, but she
eventually participated after she was contacted by chambers staff. 	R. Doc. 41. Documents filed in the
record of this case are referred to as “R. Doc. __”.
2 R. Docs. 41-42. The Court sent notice of the conference to Carline by regular and certified mail. The
Court’s certified mailing to Carline, directed to her address of record, was delivered. See R. Doc. 44. Carline
was also told during the October 23, 2025 hearing that the telephone conference was scheduled for
December 2 nd.
3 R. Doc. 45. While the telephone conference was open, the courtroom deputy called Carline on her
telephone number listed in the record, but Carline did not answer or return the voicemail left for her.
4 R. Doc. 46.
certified # 9589 0710 5270 2540 7312 43
Case 3:24-cv-00656-SDD-EWD Document 50 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
hearing. 5 The Court sent notice of the show cause hearing to Carline by regular and
certified mail. 6 The Court’s certified mailing to Carline, directed to her address of record,
was delivered. 7
On January 8, 2026, the show cause hearing was held. The hearing remained
open for fifteen minutes; however, Carline did not appear for the hearing or request that
the hearing be rescheduled. 8
The history of this case shows that Carline has failed to take appropriate action to
prosecute her claims. 	Carline has failed to respond to at least two Court orders, even
though she was told that her case could be dismissed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) provides for dismissal of a suit under these facts:
(b) Involuntary 	Dismissal; 	Effect. If 	the 	plaintiff 	fails 	to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a
dismissal 	under 	this 	subdivision 	(b)…operates 	as 	an
adjudication on the merits.
A district court may dismiss a case on its own motion under Rule 41(b) with or
without notice to the parties. 9 	Carline has ignored Court orders, even though she was
told that her claims might be dismissed if she did not comply.
Accordingly,
5 R. Doc. 46, p. 2.
6 R. Docs. 46-47.
7 R. Doc. 48.
8 R. Doc. 49.
9 Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co. Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes
the district court to dismiss a claim for failure of prosecution. Although the rule speaks of dismissal pursuant
to a motion by the defendant a district court may dismiss on its own motion, with or without notice to the
parties. This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases.”) (citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8
L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
Case 3:24-cv-00656-SDD-EWD Document 50 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned lawsuit be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for the failure of Plaintiff Jessica
Carline to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order
and Judgment of Dismissal to Plaintiff Jessica Carline by regular mail and by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to her address of record on PACER.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana on the 13th day of January, 2026.
____________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
S
Case 3:24-cv-00656-SDD-EWD Document 50 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3