Fredericks v. Ameriflight, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KATHLEEN FREDERICKS,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERIFLIGHT, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1757-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Ameriflight, LLC’s motion to dismiss four opt-in
plaintiffs. (Doc. 165). Having carefully considered the motion, the Court GRANTS
it and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Nathaniel Spiller, Rui Zhai,
Kaela Calfas, and Itamar Reuven against defendant Ameriflight, LLC for failure to
prosecute their case.
Plaintiff Kathleen Fredricks initiated this action against Ameriflight under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court certified a collective action for
certain FLSA claims.1 On September 29, 2025, the parties notified the Court that the
parties had settled following ADR.2 Ameriflight subsequently moved to dismiss the
four opt-in plaintiffs from the collective, asserting that after opting in, they failed to
1 Doc. 109.
2 Doc. 161.
Case 3:23-cv-01757-X Document 174 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
participate in discovery or respond to written discovery requests.3 The Court granted
unopposed motions allowing counsel to withdraw for each opt-in plaintiff based on
their failure to respond to counsel’s repeated communications and discovery
obligations.4
Rule 41(b) allows the Court to “dismiss the action or any claim against” the
defendant if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order.”5 Dismissal under Rule 41(b) may be sua sponte, but it may be with prejudice
“only if the failure to comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay
or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser
sanctions before dismissing the action.”6
Dismissal of certain opt-in plaintiffs under Rule 41(b) is warranted because
Spiller, Zhai, Calfas, and Reuven failed to prosecute their claims. The remaining
question is whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. In exercising its
discretion, the Court finds that although these opt-in plaintiffs failed to prosecute,
the record does not establish purposeful delay or contumacious conduct, nor has the
Court imposed lesser sanctions sufficient to justify dismissal with prejudice under
Rule 41(b)’s heightened standard. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE opt-in plaintiffs Nathaniel
3 Doc. 165.
4 Docs. 153, 169, 170, 171.
5 FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
6 Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879–80 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:23-cv-01757-X Document 174 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Spiller, Rui Zhai, Kaela Calfas and Itamar Reuven claims against the defendant
Ameriflight, LLC for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2025.
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-01757-X Document 174 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>