Mayhan v. Sunoco Inc

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The motion to reopen the case (D.I. 62 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/12/2022. (nms)

Case 1:18-cv-00355-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 328

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEBORAH J. MAYHAN ,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 18-355-RGA

V.

SUNOCO, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 12th day of January, 2022 , having considered Plaintiff's motion
to reopen the case (D.I. 62) ;
IT IS ORDERED that motion (D .I. 62) is DENIED, for the reasons that follow:
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 6, 2018 . (D. I. 2)

During the course of

this litigation I have entered five show cause orders, all directed to Plaintiff.

(D .I. 16,

19, 22 , 52, 58) The last show cause order, entered on February 12, 2021 , ordered
Plaintiff to show cause or before March 12, 2021 , why the Court should not enforce its
January 16, 2020 Order (D .I. 47) compelling arbitration and placed Plaintiff on notice
that her failure to respond to the Show Cause Order would be considered a failure to
prosecute and would result in dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff did not file a timely response to the Show Cause order, and on March 23 ,
2021 , the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute.
(D .I. 60) . On March 25 , 2021 , Plaintiff filed a belated response to the show cause
order. (D .I. 61).

Therein she stated that Defendant gave her incorrect information ,

1

Case 1:18-cv-00355-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 329

provided false statements to the Court, attempted to manipulate the Court by denying
her due process , did not challenge any of the claims in the case, and that the case has
been very stressful.

(/d.) .

On June 4, 2021 , Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case due to a "death in the
family." (0 .162 at 1). The funeral service was held in California on March 19, 2021 .
(0.1. 62-1 at 1). The motion also states that the order Plaintiff received indicates she
was to file before March 26, 2021 and she filed on March 25, 2021 . (0 .1. 62 at 1).
Plaintiffs is incorrect that her response to the show cause order was due by
March 26 , 2021.

Plaintiffs response was due on March 12, 2021. (0 .1. 58) . Her motion

to reopen seems to imply that she did not file the response because she attended the
funeral of a family member on March 19, 2021 , one week after the filing deadline. She
does not explain why March 19, 2021 funeral service affected her ability to file a
response that was due one week earlier.

Nor did Plaintiff seek an extension of time to

file her response, a response that was filed almost two weeks late.

On the other hand ,

she also seems to imply that she was mistaken as to when the response was due.
either event, Plaintiff then waited until June 4 , 2021 , more than two months later, to
move to reopen the case .
Plaintiff provides no basis to reopen the case . Therefore , Plaintiffs motion to
reopen will be denied.

2

In