GLOZIK HOLDINGS LLC
v.
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Glozik Holdings LLC's action against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and subsequently ignored a court order to show cause.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under M.D. Fla. L.R. 3.10. The court found that dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits and courts have discretion to impose such dismissals.
“Dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits; and, therefore, courts are afforded discretion in dismissing claims in this manner.”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissal without prejudice and the discretion available to courts in such circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 17, 2025, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to file a response or request an extension. On November 12, 2025,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the file. On October 17, 2025, Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff Glozik Holdings LLC did not file a response in opposition to the motion or request an extension of time to do so. So on November 12, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to respond by November 19, 2025, warning Plaintiff that under Local Rule 3.01(d), “[i]f a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed." (Doc. 40). The Court observed that "it does not appear Plaintiff is diligently prosecuting this action or opposing adverse judgment" and cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.” (Id. (citing M.D.
Fla. L.R. 3.10). Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause or request an extension of time to do so.
Dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits; and, therefore, courts are afforded discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. See, e.g., Roderick v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No. 2:23-CV-1169-SPC-NPM, 2025 WL 42973, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2025) (citing Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See M.D. Fla. 3.10. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending deadlines, deny all pending motions as moot, and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 20, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record