Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. CD Building Services, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE OHIO
LABORERS BENEFITS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CD BUILDING SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:23-cv-1508
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation following
Defendant’s failure to comply with Court Orders. For the following reasons, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DIRECT the Clerk to enter default against the Defendant.
I. 	Background
On December 8, 2025, the Court granted a motion made by Defendant’s former counsel
seeking to withdraw. (ECF No. 29.) In that December 8, 2025 Order, the Court ordered
Defendant to retain new trial counsel and to have new counsel enter an appearance within 30
days. (Id.) The Court also reminded Defendant that, as a limited liability corporation, it could
only proceed in this Court through licensed counsel and that any filings submitted without an
attorney’s signature would be treated as unsigned for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(a). (Id.) The Court expressly warned Defendant that noncompliance might result in
an entry of default against it. (Id.) But Defendant did not comply.
Case: 2:23-cv-01508-JLG-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Accordingly, the Court issued a Show Cause Order on January 12, 2026, ordering
Defendant to show cause as to why default should not be entered against it as a sanction for its
noncompliance. (ECF No. 31.) The Court again reminded Defendant that it could not proceed
without counsel. (Id.) Defendant had 14 days, or until January 26, 2026, to respond to the Show
Cause Order. (Id.) To date, Defendant has failed to do so.
The record also reflects that the Court’s December 8, 2025 and January 12, 2026 Show
Cause Orders via U.S. Mail were returned as undeliverable even though the Clerk of this Court
mailed both of them to Defendant’s statutory agent. (ECF Nos. 29, 31.) Defendant has yet to
provide the Court with an updated address.
II. 	Law and Analysis
A district court has the inherent power to sanction a party when that party exhibits bad
faith. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–50 (1991). The “imposition of inherent power
sanctions requires a finding of bad faith,” First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins.
Co., 307 F.3d 501, 517 (6th Cir. 2002), or conduct “tantamount to bad faith,” Roadway Express,
Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980). Bad faith includes refusal to comply with a court order.
Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:11-cv-1122, 2015 WL 4742686, at *6 (S.D. Ohio
Aug. 11, 2015) (quoting Youn v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409, 420 (6th Cir. 2003)).
A district court’s inherent authority to sanction derives from its power to impose respect
in its presence, control the litigants before it, and guarantee the integrity of the courts. See
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43–44. Due to “their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised
with restraint and discretion.” Id. at 44 (citing Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 764). “A primary
aspect of that discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses
the judicial process.” Id. at 44–45. Although dismissal of a lawsuit is a particularly severe
Case: 2:23-cv-01508-JLG-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
sanction, it is nevertheless within the Court’s discretion. Id. at 45 (citing Roadway Express, 447
U.S. at 765.) It follows that the Court’s inherent powers authorize the imposition of less severe
sanctions as well.
Here, on December 8, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant to retain new counsel and have
new counsel make an appearance. (ECF No. 29.) The Court allowed 30 days for compliance.
(Id.) Defendant did not do so. On January 12, 2026, the Court issued a Show Cause Order and
allowed Defendant until January 26, 2026 to comply. (ECF No. 31.) Again, Defendant did not do
so. Nor has Defendant updated its mailing address with the Court.
The undersigned concludes that these repeated failures to comply with clear Orders—
despite explicit warnings—constitute bad faith and warrant sanctions. See Mitan v. Int’l Fidelity
Ins. Co., 23 F. App’x 292, 294–95, 298–99 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming sanctions against plaintiff
whose “history of forum shopping and abusing the legal process” included failure to respond to
three show cause orders). The undersigned further concludes that given Defendant’s
noncompliance, directing the Clerk to enter default against it is an appropriately calibrated
sanction. It will guarantee the integrity of judicial proceedings, protect the Court’s authority, and
implement the very consequence that the Court warned might follow.
Moreover, Defendant has an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in
address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994)
(“If [pro se litigant’s] address changed, she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with
notice of any and all changes in her address.”); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th
Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with
sophisticated legal issues . . . there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward
procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend.”); Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem.,
Case: 2:23-cv-01508-JLG-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
LLC, No. 1:07cv289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) (“By failing to keep the
Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his
action.”). Defendant’s failure to provide an updated mailing address suggests it has abandoned
its defense to Plaintiff’s claims
III. 	Disposition
For all these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clerk be DIRECTED to enter
default against Defendant as a sanction for its failure to comply with the December 8, 2025
Order and the January 12, 2026 Show Cause Order.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). 	A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, 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 specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 2:23-cv-01508-JLG-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-01508-JLG-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>