# Bourg v. GeoVera Advantage Insurance Services, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · July 15, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11100495

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** July 15, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11100495

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KENT BOURG CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 24-01550

GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE SECTION “H”
COMPANY

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company’s
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (Rec. Doc.
19). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from damages to Plaintiff Kent Bourg’s residential
property located at 208 S. Central Blvd. in Chauvin, Louisiana (the “Property”)
allegedly caused by Hurricane Ida.1 Defendant GeoVera Specialty Insurance
Company issued a Policy of Insurance (the “Policy”) to Plaintiff on the
Property.2 On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Damages in the
32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne.3 On June 14, 2024,
Defendant removed the matter to this Court.4 On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff

1 Rec. Doc. 10-1 at 1.
2 Id.
3 Rec. Doc. 3.
4 Id.
1
filed a Motion to Remand.5 On May 9, 2025, this Court declined to rule on the
Motion and instructed the parties to supplement their briefings with
“summary-judgment-type” evidence supporting any factual allegations made
in the briefings that were outside the record.6
Case Management Order No. 1 (“CMO No. 1”), which governs Hurricane
Ida lawsuits, provides the protocol for expedited discovery (“Disaster
Protocols”) and streamlined settlement conference and mediation protocols
(“Streamlined Settlement Process”).7 Pursuant to CMO No. 1, the parties are
to provide Initial Disclosures within “45 days from the date that the defendant
files responsive pleadings.”8 Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures were therefore
ordered to be produced August 5, 2024—45 days after Defendant filed its
responsive pleadings on June 19, 2024.9
On December 5, 2024, Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) requesting dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that Plaintiff failed to either produce the
disclosures in compliance with this Court’s Order or make “any meaningful
efforts in furthering their case since it was initially filed.”10 In that Motion,
Defendant contended that counsel for Defendant first contacted Plaintiff’s
counsel on August 5, 2024 regarding the status of the Initial Disclosures. After

5 Rec. Doc. 14.
6 Rec. Doc. 17. To date, neither Defendant nor Plaintiff has supplemented the
briefings. The Court notes that Defendant, as the removing party, has the burden of proving
jurisdiction. Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 882 (5th Cir. 2000).
7 Rec. Doc. 5.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Rec. Doc. 10.
2
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond, Defendant reached out again via email on
August 19, September 4, and September 16, and left a voicemail on September
24, 2024. On October 28, 2024, counsel for Defendant sent an email setting a
Rule 37 status conference for November 4, 2024. Plaintiff did not respond to
that email or attend the conference. On May 13, 2025, this Court denied the
Motion and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file Initial Disclosures to May
28, 2025.11
On May 30, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 41(b).12 Defendant contends that to date, Plaintiff has not
filed Initial Disclosures. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Motion.

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court has “an inherent power” to manage its docket “to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”13 “This power includes the
authority under Rule 41(b) to dismiss an action with prejudice for a party’s
failure to comply with court orders.”14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
provides that
[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or
a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a
dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under
this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or

11 Rec. Doc. 18.
12 Rec. Doc. 19.
13 Order, Lewis v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 23-cv-06793 (E.D. La. May 16, 2024)
(ECF 18) (Morgan, J.) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).
14 Id. (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 626–31).
3
failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an adjudication
on the merits.

When a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, the Fifth Circuit has
held that dismissal with prejudice is warranted if “there is a showing of (a) a
clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and (b) where
lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.”15

LAW AND ARGUMENT
Defendant argues that dismissal is warranted because, since this case
was removed on June 14, 2024, Plaintiff has failed to communicate with
counsel for Defendant, failed to progress his lawsuit, failed to comply with this
Court’s Case Management Order, and has now failed to comply with this
Court’s May 18, 2025 Order that Plaintiff provide his Initial Disclosures by
May 28, 2025. This Court agrees.
Decisions from other sections of this Court support this conclusion. In
Lewis v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Co., the defendant filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 41, after which the Court held a telephone conference
with the parties regarding the status of the required disclosures.16 After the
plaintiff’s counsel attended the conference and assured the court that the
required disclosures would be produced, yet still failed to produce them, the
defendants filed a second motion to dismiss.17 This Court granted the motion
and dismissed the case, noting that “courts in this district have ordered a Rule

15 In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 966 F.3d 351, 358 (5th Cir. 2020); see
also Johnson v. Jones, 794 F. App’x 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted).
16 Order at 2, Lewis, No. 23-cv-06793 (ECF 18).
17 Id.
4
41(b) dismissal after ‘repeated noncompliance’ with the CMO despite
‘numerous extensions.’”18 The Court found a “clear record” of “contumacious
conduct” and stated that it could not “conceive how ‘lesser sanctions,’ which
would permit Plaintiff to effect further delays and deprive Defendant of the
information necessary to prepare and defend the case, would ‘serve the bests
[sic] interests of justice.”’19
Here, Plaintiff has twice failed to comply with this Court’s orders.
“Generally, where a plaintiff has failed only to comply with a few court orders
or rules,” the Fifth Circuit has held that “the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing the suit with prejudice.” 20 Other sections of this Court, however,
have found that dismissal is warranted where a party has both failed to comply
with court orders and failed to respond to a Rule 41 motion.21 Here too, Plaintiff
has failed to request another extension to file Initial Disclosures or otherwise
respond to the instant Motion. As such, the record supports a finding of a “clear
record of delay or contumacious conduct” sufficient to support the remedy of
dismissal with prejudice, and lesser sanctions would not “serve the best
interests of justice.”

18 Id. (quoting In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2592, No. 2:19-
cv-12994, 2020 WL 7023902, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2020)).
19 Id. at 3 (quoting Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 417 (5th Cir.
2006)).
20 Johnson, 794 Fed. App’x at 403 (citing Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188,
1191 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992)).
21 See, e.g. Pierce v. Crowe, No. 11-2227, 2017 WL 1344901, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 11,
2017) (Brown, J.) (granting Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to comply with
three court orders and failed to file an opposition to the motion); see also Order at 3, Lewis,
No. 23-cv-06793 (ECF 18) (dismissing unopposed motion to dismiss and noting that other
federal courts in Louisiana have dismissed actions where plaintiff has failed to produce any
documents and failed to respond to motion to dismiss).
5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 19)
is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 15th day of July, 2025.
□□ TRICHE LF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11100495. Public record. Not legal advice.