Rhodes v. Credit Protection Association

Filing 48

ORDER: Having found Rhodes's behavior to be willful and that no less drastic sanction is sufficient, Defendant Credit Protection Association's Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. # 39 ) is GRANTED insofar as this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff Rayon Rhodes's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. # 41 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/2/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RAYON RHODES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-2790-T-33MAP

CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte and upon
Defendant Credit Protection Association’s Motion to Dismiss
Case with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. # 39), filed on
December 19, 2016. Plaintiff Rayon Rhodes has not complied
with the Court’s December 20, 2016, Order (Doc. # 44), nor
has Rhodes responded to Defendant’s Motion. For the reasons
below, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
Discussion
The Court has previously recounted Rhodes’s history of
noncompliance with the orders of this Court. (Doc. ## 21, 38,
44). As such, the Court provides a mere summary for purposes
of this Order.
Prior to the commencement of the instant action, Rhodes
filed

an

identical

lawsuit

against

Defendant

Credit

Protection Association. Rhodes v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, No.
8:15-cv-2184-T-33TBM. That action was dismissed for failure
to prosecute. Id. at (Doc. # 14) (order dated October 28,
2015, dismissing case).
About two months later, Rhodes, rather than moving to
reopen

the

earlier-filed

action,

instituted

this

action

against Defendant, which was transferred to the undersigned
from

the

Honorable

James

D.

Whittemore,

United

States

District Judge. (Doc. ## 1, 11). The continual noncompliance
that plagued the first-filed action also thwarted the Court’s
attempts

to

secure

the

just,

speedy,

and

inexpensive

resolution of this action. To be sure, Rhodes:
(1) failed to timely file a notice of mediation as
required by the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. #
15);
(2) failed to file a notice of mediation within the
extension of time granted sua sponte by the Court
(Doc. # 16);
(3) failed to respond to the Court’s August 25,
2016, Order to show cause (Doc. # 18);
(4) failed to file a notice of mediation after the
case was reopened (Doc. # 24);
(5) failed to appear for Court-ordered mediation as
required under the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc.
# 38);
(6) submitted a questionable explanation as to why
he did not appear in person for mediation (Doc. ##
40, 44);

2 

(7) failed to provide the supplemental information
as ordered, even after being granted an extension
of time to do so (Doc. ## 44, 46); and
(8) failed to respond to the Defendant’s Motion.
The Court has been more than accommodating to Rhodes,
but at some point enough is enough. As stated in the Court’s
December 20, 2016, Order, failure to comply would “result in
dismissal of this action with prejudice and may result in
sanctions against Rhodes.” (Doc. # 44 at 10). Because Rhodes
has

not

responded

to

the

Court’s

request

for

further

information, this action is dismissed. The only question
remaining is whether the Court will dismiss the action with
prejudice as a sanction. Although the Court intimated it might
impose

sanctions

beyond

dismissal

with

prejudice,

and

Defendant requests as much, the Court finds dismissal with
prejudice is sufficient.
“‘[D]ismissal with prejudice is a drastic sanction that
may be imposed only upon finding a clear pattern of delay or
willful

contempt

and

that

lesser

sanctions

would

not

suffice.’” Turner v. United States, 203 Fed. Appx. 952, 954
(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1340 (11th Cir. 2005)). Furthermore,
the Eleventh Circuit “rigidly requires the district courts to

3 

make

these

findings

precisely

because

the

sanction

of

dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing, and [it] strive[s]
to afford a litigant his or her day in court, if possible.”
Id. (quoting Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1340) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
As demonstrated above, Rhodes has continually refused to
comply with the Court’s orders, which evinces a flagrant and
willful disregard for this Court’s authority. In addition,
the

Court

has

already

dismissed

Rhodes’s

suit

against

Defendant twice (once in the earlier-filed action and once in
this

action)

without

prejudice

because

of

Rhodes’s

noncompliance. Yet, in spite of those dismissals, Rhodes has
continued to disregard the Court’s orders. Therefore, the
Court finds that a less drastic sanction will not suffice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Having found Rhodes’s behavior to be willful and that no
less drastic sanction is sufficient, Defendant Credit
Protection Association’s Motion to Dismiss Case with
Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. # 39) is GRANTED
insofar as this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

(2)

Plaintiff Rayon Rhodes’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. # 41)
is DENIED AS MOOT.

4 

(3)

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd

day of February, 2017.

5