E-Alert Case Updates

Delaware Federal Court Examines Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

Melissa McCourt v. USA Auto Mall, Inc.
Case No. 12-857-LPS (United States District Court for the District of Delaware, September 27, 2016)
by Richard J. Medoff, Associate
Semmes, Bowen & Semmes (www.semmes.com)

Available at:
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/lps/2016/september/12-857.pdf

Melissa McCourt v. USA Auto Mall, Inc. involved a Defendant’s motion to dismiss a Plaintiff’s consumer credit action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Citing Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that the six (6) factors considered when determining whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted, weighed in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. Thus, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

By way of factual background, on July 9, 2012, Plaintiff Melissa McCourt (“Plaintiff”) filed a consumer credit action against Defendant USA Auto Mall, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss which was opposed by Plaintiff. On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay, which was denied on March 29, 2013. On October 23, 2013, the Court entered an order for the parties to provide a joint status report by October 30, 2013. Defendant advised the Court on October 30, 2013 that its understanding was that Plaintiff was now proceeding pro se, as her counsel of record was on disability status. Defendant had mailed a letter to Plaintiff at her last known address regarding the joint status report, but the letter was returned to Defendant because the “forward time” had expired.

On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff telephoned the Court Clerk’s Office regarding the status of her case. Following Plaintiff’s telephone call, the Clerk’s Office adjusted the docket to add Plaintiff’s current address and to indicate that Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. No further action was taken until December 9, 2015, when the Court entered a scheduling order. On January 8, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. When Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, the Court entered an order setting a briefing schedule, requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motion on or before June 3, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response on May 23, 2016.

The Court began its analysis by noting that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules or a court order. The Court explained that “although dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action.” See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 (3d Cir. 1995). The Court further explained that the following six (6) factors are considered in determining whether dismissal is warranted: (1) “the extent of the party’s personal responsibility;” (2) “the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery;” (3) “a history of dilatoriness;” (4) “whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith;” (5) “the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions;” and (6) “the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.” See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). The Court noted that it “must balance the factors and need not find that all of them weigh against Plaintiff to dismiss the action.” See Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002); Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1998).

Defendant argued that dismissal was appropriate on the grounds that, at the time it filed its motion, Plaintiff had not “been heard from in over three (3) years,” and although Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s motion as ordered by the Court, Plaintiff’s response did not address the failure to prosecute issue or provide an explanation for her failure to take action in the case. The Court agreed with Defendant and found that the Poulis factors warranted dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.

First, the Court noted that Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and, as a pro se litigant, she was solely responsible for prosecuting her claim. See Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 980 F.2d 912, 920 (3d Cir. 1992). Second, the Court noted that “prejudice occurs when a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute burdens the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial,” and found that Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute because Plaintiff failed to proceed with discovery and the discovery deadline had passed. See Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222-23 (3d Cir. 2003).

As to the third factor, the Court found that the docket indicated a history of dilatoriness, which Plaintiff did not address or explain in her response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff took no action from March 25, 2014, when she contacted the Clerk’s Office, until May 11, 2016, when she filed a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court also noted that Plaintiff took no action to respond to the motion to dismiss until the Court entered a briefing schedule for her to do so, and also that there was nothing on the docket that indicated Plaintiff had proceeded with discovery.

As to the fourth factor, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her claim was willful or in bad faith, noting that “only Plaintiff could take steps to prosecute the case against Defendant.” As to the fifth factor, the Court found there were no alternative sanctions that the Court could effectively impose. The Court explained that precluding Plaintiff from presenting evidence at trial, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, or forbidding Plaintiff from pursuing discovery all would have the same effect as dismissal. The Court also noted that a monetary sanction would be ineffective because Plaintiff represented that she had limited resources. Finally, the Court found that the sixth factor, the merits of the claim, was “neutral.” In light of the foregoing, the Court held that the Poulis factors weighed in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.