Dezauche v. Aircraft Manufacturing & Design, LLC et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying 112 Motion to Dismiss; granting 113 Motion for Leave to File. It is further ordered that this case is re-opened and back on active status. The supplement to the proposed pre-trial order shall be filed before the close of business, July 31, 2015. Defendants may file any response by the close of business, August 7, 2015. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 7/23/15. (cmr)

Download PDF
ORIGINAL IN THE IJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOIITHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION fILED r,,s.0lsTRtcr c0tjRl Flv. FoR rHd{ilct,isTA nrs.uL 23 * * DANIEL DEZAUCHE, p - L a a n Cl _I I G E O R G EW . B R Y C E , . J R . ; SOUTHEAST LIGHT SPORT AVfATION, LLC; FLY LIGHT * * * * qDnp't- * T.T.a- . AIITATTn\T FAq.l-MAl\T . T\Ta- .TOIJ\T nnFq ^h.l /1-',tnn\ * 'r'rf1 !!s, n^di-h uEDfYrr, and as members Manufact.uring & * * Defendants. individually of Aircraft cv 311-071 * * * ORDER Before the Light Southeast Court Defendants Sport Aviation, Eastman Avi-ation, (Doc. no. is George W. Bryce, LLC, FIy Light l-12,) For the reasons stated Sport, LLC, and moEion to ( "Defendants" ) Inc.'s Jr., dismj-ss. herein, t.he motion is DENIED. I. /17r , 1 1 1l 1 / ,,rll'l l{ affeging warranty purchase of vacated an the trial (Doc. no. 109.) BACKGROUND Pl^rni-1i-t and contract airpfane. assignment tr lF.l cl-aims On February scheduled The Court ordered t-hic tha! dirrcrai arising 6, for 2015, February 1-\' from the d,,i i- the Court L'7, 20L5. case wil-1 be reassigned for trial [t]he when Pl-aint.if f his preparation and the Court is assured tha! the matter is ready to proceed to me:ni ncrf rr'l thaf motion f^r (fd.) r-onsi nlrrnrrsr by FIaint.if :l l Comprehensive TriaL On July 4f (b) , 6, Disobedience or Failure t.o Promptness. " of his Motion to (Doc. no. Federal a NeglecE Rule of to "Molion a Civif (Doc. no. 112.) Eo move this fn his Reassign of Plaintiff the Case for in the procedure Civil_ This for Court With WjLl_ful and for Reasonab]e responds wit.h details case forward response, Supplement forth Dismiss Action a Rufe 41(b) that set l-10.) The 111.) 201-5, citing filed reasons Prosecute (Doc. no. 113.) to the of Damages and (Doc. no. Date.,, an Order Order and argues Leave for p Ir/.v)Fn . ) s F d M ss Wi fh and Statement of efforts Fav uvnrr l n u v r a '.Morion for Leave Lo Ofder Trial of motion Defendants clrmh^rrarl reonened is filed SEipufations February 6'h Order. iJ rs r r) r r L ' PI"e-Triaf Restoration the : s case Plaintiff Prnnnsed Court. denied Lrrr .rf Three days later, Request for r-rn the f , the capt.ioned matter is CLOSED yah a t - = t - i c t - i - .* - -rorcang. -1 nrrrnaeoe Slrnnl ement for der:Ii Untif since dismissal Plaintiff is pre-triaf (Id.) 6-h unwarrant.ed. renews his Proposed Triaf." the February This ..Motion Order motion and is GRANTED. II. Defendan!s argue lhat DISCUSSION dismissal- with prejudice pursuant. is to Rul-e 41(b) f .1 a nr^qe.rrf e I , r v v v e < e e hh^rf af ? m^i-i of Februarv should racnnnqi here because Pl-aintif f has failed wit.h action hisEory the in It f hi s l-hai procedural issue warranted ^h naFFrrd^nt-a Ehis f nr m^r, Tn nromninFqq nrarriula r The Court case. nar:i addressed even underscored, mnrri fnrwrrA and his counseL. Plaintrff the pfaintiff fails 41(b) ("If these or comply with rules dFfan.iant- a larl lhis 6'h order. be recalfed, l-ri I i rrr reasonal-r'l mOVe tO diSmiSS that rAcr- < the ,'h^F Fed. R. Civ, to prosecute or a court order, the acfion or v! P. E.o a an\/ qrrl Bradford v., 481 F. claim against it."); (11" 51-7, 517-18 Appx. Cir. 2012) (affirming court of district dismissal civil action with ,a nrai rrd i .-a .\\'ar n'lrinriff n l - r i a- - - , o n nr- i pursuanc to Ru.le 41(b) where l-itigation spanned two and a half vcars and fhe record Otherwi d6 o ,q ,/ nv h ^ v r - a g^ } I/ 4 v L e dismissal-) ; Calfowav v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 313 F. A p p x . 2 4 6 , 2 4 9 1 1 L \ \ C i r . 2 O O 9 )( a f f i r m i n g district cour! dismissal under Rule 41(b) where plaintiff failed to "avail- himself of the multiple chances he waq oiwen fo .r^ forward with his case,, and f inrti ncr woufd not have spurred the that "l-esser sanctions liLigaL.ion to it.s just completion,') . FurL.her, a court possesses inherenL. power to pofice district its own docket. Mingo v. Suqar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida, 864 F.2d ]-O7, 702 (11rb Cir. 7989). to this power, the judge may impose "Incident formal- sanctions upon dilatory litiganEs. The j-ons imposed can range from a simple reprimand sanct Lo an order dismj-ssinq the action wit.h or without prej udice . " Id. The mechanism sefected by t.he Court in this case - namely, vacating the scheduled t.rial date and closing the case for sE.atistical purposes until has appropriately prepared his case for Plaintsiff - falls within that ranqe. trial (Doc. no, months. their 109.) Ofher than the passaqe of an additional_ Defendants motion presen! t.o dismiss no informat.ion that four or circumst.ances were not considered j-n by the court prior to copies of numerous electronic good faith communicate and Pfaintiff has wi1l,fu1 contempt fesser rcmairt submits Defendants, to support. his assert.ion this not sanctions The cooperate. engaged since in the a case for slrffi.ianl- Sea Court clear crial- anllinq rr of 6'r Order in that T.rLa since refusal that that Order were, T or delay and Halal1 2007) . Defendants, that concludes pattern February r-mposed by the Court Appx. 116, 119 (11c[ Cir. is communicat.ions with to prepare efforts Plaintiff Order. 6 Order have been stymj-ed by Defendants, the February to 6" February proposed stipulations, including his the issuing D the and )aq tr mot.ion to dismiss DENIED. As noted/ Plaintiff filed a .'Renewed Molion Supplement the Proposed Pre-trial for Case Tria7" Defendants' r-orrnsel ie motion f.) fhe in to eyfanj- nr:.'i- Leave to Order and Motion tso Reassign conjunction dismiss. for ft with his appears i.r1-\'1 a ra:drr response that iL v -^ to pl-aintif f , s h l?v^u^s s6u^ a y iu v ^ trial-. III. Upon t.he foregoing, motion lo dismiss "Renewed Motion for CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBYORDERED that {doc. no. 172) DENIED. plaintiff,s Leave to Suppl-ement tshe proposed pre-trial Order and Motion to Reassign Case for GRANTED. is Defendants, Triaf ,, (doc. no. 113) is ORDERED IT IS FURTHER that Clerk is fin:l to place directed diqn.\eil-i.n pre-trial ,'Trr'l\r iq ?n-l q notice ten in parties and their .anl- i^1r ch.\r^rn ^h^\/a Tn references so EhaE the consistent the parties interest with :nrr r t-haral-^ eryvrrpe the The part.ies trial 1I- r r le-Ll .L e ra p receive assignment accommodate buL not wil-l- all will a be foreseeable may be postponed judge. by the presiding proceeds stil-liha rle^ r - a r .el . by the The €i l-n !r-re:u, nlarrlin^ I/r!autrrg cumbersome nlirnFi F€l^ r-!cr-LrlL-r!L $ to el- j-minate all- unnecessary instructed in n r , ,vrPh r.eisc a . l v I/! 2015. to case counse1 is parties le-. rh F v counsel are so advised- this FinaIly, l-^ the cl-ose of business, This speciaL setcing by Providence and the acE j-ve st.atus until sllnr-\lamanf f i lc days frrturo schedul-ing necessiEies. or altered m:r.. in before assignmenL. triaf srrff ir':ienf lw c next the of The August 7, cl-ose of business, Within .aff^inFd DcfFrrdrnl- case is re-opened Ehe matter shal-l- be filed order ?1 this for caption or incl,udes against onLy shaI1 use the reformed those whom relief Ehe supplemented pre-tria1 order. case caption names and. is genuine soughc Thereafter, in al_l- papers and pleadings. ORDERENTEREDaL Augusta, Georgia this 23'. day of July, 2015 . DISTRI

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?