Henton-Platt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft et al

Filing 40

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, sua sponte, without prejudice and without costs or fees to either party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Decision. Plaintiff may move to re-open the case when she is ready to proceed on or before February 28, 2019. This Order shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits of the case. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/30/2018. (Mattessich, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

HOPE HENTON-PLATT
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY DIVISION
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:17-CV-1690 (VLB)

October 30, 2018

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant United Technologies Corporation, Pratt &
Whitney Division discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. [Dkt. 17 (Amended Complaint)]. Plaintiff's
attorney filed a motion to withdraw on July 20, 2018, citing her upcoming
retirement.

[Dkt. 29].

The Court granted the motion, allowing Plaintiff until

September 1, 2018 to find new counsel. [Dkt. 30]. Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time to find an attorney on July 23, 2018, which the Court granted.
[Dkt. 32]. Plaintiff represents that she does not wish to proceed pro se, but that
she filed a pro se appearance in order to receive court filings. [Dkt. 37]. On October
17, 2018, Defendants requested a discovery dispute conference, informing the
court that Plaintiff represented to Defendant that she planned to find new counsel
by the third week in November. [Dkt. 36, Exhibit C]. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
fails to comply with her discovery obligations, in spite of Defendant’s serving
written discovery requests on Plaintiff in May of 2018. [Dkt. 36, at 2]. Plaintiff then

filed a Motion for Extension of time until mid-February to obtain an attorney. [Dkt.
37].
“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). Trial courts may also dismiss cases for failure to prosecute sua
sponte. Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159, 179 (2d. Cir. 2001). Mindful of the
months of delay Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute has caused, balancing plaintiff’s
right to an opportunity for a day in court with the need to alleviate court calendar
congestion, and considering prejudice to the defendant that may result from
further delay, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate
remedy. See U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Systems, Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 254 (2d. Cir.
2004) (listing factors district courts must examine when dismissing for failure to
prosecute).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the case, sua sponte,
without prejudice and without costs or fees to either party. Plaintiff may move to
re-open the case on or before February 28, 2019 once she secures representation
and is ready to proceed. This deadline may be extended for good cause under D.
Conn. Local R. 7(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED
__________/s/____________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: October 30, 2018.