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)
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?