Legal Capital Group, LLC v. Callagy Law, P.C., et. al.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:25-mc-00092 Document3 _ Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page1of3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 09, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
MCALLEN DIVISION
LEGAL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § | MISC. ACTION NO. 7:25-MC-92

§
CALLAGY LAW, P.C., et al., §
§
Defendants. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants Callagy Law, P.C., et al., initiated this miscellaneous action by filing the
pending “Motion to Quash Subpoenas of Willie Garcia and the Garcia Law Group.” (Docket No.
1.) In their motion to quash, Defendants argued that the subpoenas were improper and that the
discovery dispute should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
To flesh out the issues in this case, the undersigned set a status conference to address the motion
to quash. However, Defendants failed to appear at the hearing, nor have they taken any other
action in this case. As such, the undersigned now recommends that this action be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.

I. BACKGROUND

As noted, on April 25, 2025, Defendants initiated this miscellaneous action seeking to
quash subpoenas. (Docket No. 1.) Specifically, in the motion, Defendants move “to quash two
subpoenas in a U.S.D.C. for the District of New Jersey matter because compliance is required in

this District.”! (Docket No. 1-1, at 1.) Defendants further argue that the subpoenas at issue are

' According to Defendants, the parties are involved in litigation (2:20-CV-5124) in United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 7:25-mc-00092 Document3 _ Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

“improper for a multitude of reasons,” and that the Court should “transfer this discovery dispute
back to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the underlying case is
pending.” (/d. at 1, 3.)

However, upon review of the motion to quash, the undersigned noticed some irregularities.
Specifically, it was unclear whether the motion to quash was filed ex parte, or if Plaintiff had been
properly served with the motion. In addition, it was unclear whether Plaintiff had filed a response
to the motion to quash in the underlying case pending in New Jersey. As such, the court set a
status conference to address these issues. However, Defendants failed to appear. In addition, other
than initiating this miscellaneous action with its motion to quash, Defendants have taken no other
action in this case.

If. ANALYSIS

This action is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) provides that an
action may be involuntarily dismissed where a party “fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order.” FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Such a dismissal may be made upon motion by the
opposing party or on the court’s own motion. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127
(Sth Cir. 1988). While a court should be “appropriately lenient” with a party who is proceeding
pro se, the “‘right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant
rules of procedural and substantive law.’” Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (Sth Cir. 1991)
(quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (Sth Cir. 1981)).

Defendants have failed to comply with the relevant rules and to prosecute this action.
Specifically, Defendants failed to appear at a hearing. In sum, because Defendants have failed to
appear at a hearing and otherwise failed to communicate with the Court, this case should be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Torres v. Krueger, 596 F. App’x 319, 321 (Sth Cir. 2015)

Case 7:25-mc-00092 Document3 _ Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

(In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the action with prejudice, the Fifth Circuit noted the
parties’ failure to respond to the court’s order.). No less drastic sanction is available here, given
that the Court cannot communicate with Defendants.” See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441
(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal without prejudice was the least drastic sanction where any attempt to
provide further notice would be “a futile gesture” given pro se litigant’s failure to provide a change
of address).

Il. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this

miscellaneous action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
NOTICE

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the parties, who have
fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file timely written
objections shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the District Court on
an issue covered in this Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

SO ORDERED, the 9" day of February 2026, at McAllen, Texas

W—

NADIA S. MEDRANO
United States Magistrate Judge

? A copy of this Report will be sent to Defendants at the last address they provided. Should
Defendants respond to the Report, the District Court may then wish to consider whether less drastic
sanctions might be appropriate.