Carter et al v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting 42 Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on March 11, 2014. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION MARTHA CARTER and KIMBERLY RUFF v. PLAINTIFFS Case No. 10-6074 AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.; XEROX CORPORATION; and ACS@XEROX, LLC DEFENDANTS ORDER Now before this Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (doc. 42) and supporting brief (doc. 43). Plaintiffs failed to file a timely response. On January 11, 2011, the Court adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant’s report and recommendation and ordered that Defendants’ motion to compel be granted and the case stayed pending arbitration pursuant to Title 9, Section 3 of the United States Code. (Doc. 38). The Court further ordered the parties to advise the Court within ten (10) days of any arbitration ruling as to any remaining issues for the Court. Id. On February 7, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw after being advised that Plaintiffs’ case file was returned to them by their counsel. (Docs. 39 & 41). Defendants filed the current motion to dismiss for want of prosecution on February 6, 2014. (Doc. 42). Defendants filed affidavits of service of the motion for both Plaintiffs on February 14, 2014. AO72A (Rev. 8/82) (Docs. 46-47). Plaintiffs have not filed a timely response to the motion and have had no contact with the Court in nearly Plaintiffs have three made years. no Further, attempts to Defendants initiate advised arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs leave the Court with no choice but to dismiss their Defendants’ Motion Complaint to Dismiss for failure (Doc. 42) to is prosecute. GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should Plaintiffs refile their complaint, the Court may consider requiring Plaintiffs to compensate Defendants for any duplicative costs and attorney’s fees incurred. In addition, the Court will require any refiling to be in the Western District of Arkansas and assigned to Judge Robert T. Dawson. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March 2014. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?