Reigelsperger et al v. Polaris Industries, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
JACOB REIGELSPERGER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00148
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte for the purposes of managing its
docket. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
RECOMMENDS that this lawsuit be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs’
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
With the assistance of counsel, Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting state-law
claims against Defendants Polaris Sales, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc. and United
Healthcare Services, Inc. in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
Defendants removed this lawsuit to this Court based upon diversity jurisdiction.
After Plaintiffs’ counsel of record moved for leave to withdraw, the Court granted
the motion and stayed the case for thirty days to allow Plaintiffs to retain new counsel.
(Doc. No. 36.) The Court also reminded Plaintiffs of their obligation to file a diversity
disclosure statement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). (Id.)
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiffs did not retain new counsel or file a diversity disclosure statement.
Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiffs “to submit a case status report, on or before
November 24, 2025, informing the Court whether they intend to pursue this litigation
and, if so, whether they intend to retain counsel.” (Order, Doc. No. 37, PageID# 368.)
The Court also reminded Plaintiffs that their deadline to file a diversity disclosure
statement was “no later than November 17, 2025.” (Id.) Finally, the Court warned:
“PLAINTIFFS ARE CAUTIONED THAT A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGE DISMISS THIS CASE.” (Id.) These deadlines have now passed,
and Plaintiffs have not complied with this Court’s Order.
This Court considers four factors when determining whether to dismiss a case for
lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): “(1) whether the party’s failure is
due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the
dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to
cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or
considered before dismissal was ordered.” Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359,
363 (6th Cir. 1999).
All four factors weigh in favor of dismissal. As to the first factor – willfulness, bad
faith, or fault – the Court’s Order directed Plaintiffs to take specific actions to avoid
having their case be dismissed for lack of prosecution, and they failed to comply. The
fact that Plaintiffs are not represented by counsel does not excuse their failure to obey
this Court’s orders. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-10 (6th Cir. 1991) (affirming
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
dismissal for lack of prosecution where a pro se plaintiff “failed to adhere to readily
comprehended court deadlines of which he was well-aware”).
The second factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. Litigation is often expensive,
time-consuming and stressful for the parties. As a general matter, defendants are
prejudiced when a case filed against them is unduly prolonged by a plaintiff’s failure to
respond to their dispositive motions or otherwise to prosecute the matter.
The third factor similarly weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court warned the
Plaintiffs that a failure to respond to the Order may lead to a recommendation for
dismissal.
Finally, the fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Given the Plaintiffs’ failure
to comply with the Court’s Order, no sanction short of dismissal would be appropriate.
See McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes
by those who proceed without counsel.”).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT this case be DISMISSED with
prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation (Report), that party may,
within fourteen (14) days of the date that this Report was filed, file and serve written
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
objections to specific findings or recommendations along with supporting authority for
the objection(s). Responses to objections are due ten days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. A District Judge will then
make a de novo determination of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations
to which objection is made. The District Judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, this Court’s findings or recommendations, may receive further evidence, or may
recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are advised that a failure to object to the Report will result in a waiver
of a party’s right (1) to have the District Judge review the Report de novo and (2) to
appeal a decision of the District Court adopting the Report. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>