Smith v. Trans Union LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARICA SMITH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-00900-JD
)
TRANS UNION, LLC; EQUIFAX 	)
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; and 	)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION 	)
SOLUTIONS, INC., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
The Court previously ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to file an entry of appearance by
December 1, 2025. [Doc. No. 27]. Plaintiff’s counsel is also required to enter his
appearance in a civil case by the Local Civil Rules. See LCvR83.4 (“An attorney
appearing for a party in a civil case shall enter an appearance by signing and filing an
entry of appearance on the form prescribed by the clerk of this court.”) (emphasis added).
The Court again noted Plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of compliance in its order on December
4, 2025. [Doc. No. 37 ¶ 24(i)].
When Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the Court’s prior orders and the
Local Civil Rules, on December 29, 2025, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff’s
counsel to file an entry of appearance by January 6, 2026. The Court specifically warned
that failure to comply with the order and the deadline would result in the Court
dismissing the action without prejudice and without further warning. [Doc. No. 38].
Plaintiff’s counsel has not complied with the Court’s orders or the Local Civil Rules.
Case 5:25-cv-00900-JD Document 39 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Consequently, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action without prejudice for
failure to comply with the Court’s orders and rules. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (discussing the inherent power of a court to dismiss actions);
Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (even without a motion, a
district court may sua sponte dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to comply with court
rules or orders); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of January 2026.
1 Before dismissing a case with prejudice, “a court should ordinarily consider a
number of factors,” including whether the party was warned, the amount of interference
with the judicial process, and the relative degrees of culpability and prejudice. See
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Here, the
Court need not analyze any Ehrenhaus factors because the dismissal is without prejudice.
See Arocho v. United States, 502 F. App’x 730, 732 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished)
(“When the dismissal is without prejudice, however, consideration of the Ehrenhaus
factors is not required.”) (citing AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker &
Assocs., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents,
Arapahoe Cnty. Justice, 492 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Case 5:25-cv-00900-JD Document 39 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2