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)

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)