Dehut v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER DEHUT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-644-G
)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Dehut initiated this action on April 29, 2025, in state court,
alleging breach of contract, violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and negligence
against Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1-2). The case was
removed to this Court on June 11, 2025. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
Court’s orders and applicable rules, the Court now dismisses the action without prejudice.
I. Background
On October 29, 2025, the Court held a status and scheduling conference in this
matter. See Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff failed to attend the conference or contact the Court
regarding his absence. Plaintiff further failed to participate in the preparation or submission
of the joint status report as prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Court’s Local Civil Rules.
On October 31, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within seven days
for his failure to attend the conference or to meaningfully assist in the preparation of the
joint status report. See Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 16). The Court’s show cause order
Case 5:25-cv-00644-G Document 18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. Plaintiff failed to thereafter file a response,
request an extension of time, or otherwise communicate with the Court.
On December 4, 2025, the Court issued a subsequent order directing Plaintiff to
show cause within seven days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. See Second Order to Show
Cause (Doc. No. 17). The order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. As of this
date, Plaintiff has not filed a response, requested an extension of time to comply, or
otherwise contacted the Court regarding this action.
II. Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order,” the Court may dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). The Tenth Circuit “ha[s] consistently interpreted Rule 41(b) to permit courts to
dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” Huggins v. Sup. Ct. of
U.S., 480 F. App’x 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236
(10th Cir. 2009). If the dismissal is without prejudice, the Court generally need not follow
any “particular procedures” in entering the dismissal order. AdvantEdge Bus. Grp., 552
F.3d at 1236; see Robledo-Valdez v. Smelser, 593 F. App’x 771, 775 (10th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and to comply with the Court’s orders
leaves the Court unable “to achieve an orderly and expeditious” resolution of this action.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (discussing the inherent power of a
court to dismiss suits for lack of prosecution on its own initiative).
Case 5:25-cv-00644-G Document 18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate
judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00644-G Document 18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3