context: Appel-lees were forced to defend numerous cases in separate jurisdictions simultaneously, and Appellants' absenteeism in the case below left Appellees alone to comply with the district court's pre-trial deadlines. In sum, the court's dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Sherriff's Dept.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 138 F.3d 602, 607-08
citation_a.parenthetical: maintaining that dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of discretion where delay, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to the opposing party is present
citation_a.sentence: Bossier Parish, 478 Fed.Appx. 809, 816 (5th Cir.2012) (holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where case delayed for more than a few months), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 865, 184 L.Ed.2d 678 (2013), reli’g denied, — U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 1627, 185 L.Ed.2d 610 (2013); see also Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 607-08 (5th Cir.1998) (maintaining that dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of discretion where delay, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to the opposing party is present).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where case delayed for more than a few months
citation_b.sentence: Bossier Parish, 478 Fed.Appx. 809, 816 (5th Cir.2012) (holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where case delayed for more than a few months), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 865, 184 L.Ed.2d 678 (2013), reli’g denied, — U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 1627, 185 L.Ed.2d 610 (2013); see also Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 607-08 (5th Cir.1998) (maintaining that dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of discretion where delay, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to the opposing party is present).