Gaines v. City of Savannah et al

Filing 11

ORDERED that within 7 days of this Order, the parties are directed to confer and file a joint report re 4 Order, (Compliance due by 4/3/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/27/18. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
TARA GAINES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAVANNAH, et al.,
Defendants.

CV417-258

ORDER
On December 29, 2017, defendant the City of Savannah, Georgia
removed this employment discrimination case from the Superior Court of
Chatham County, Georgia.
(Complaint).

See doc. 1 (Notice of Removal); doc. 1-2

At the time of removal, the City informed the Court that

several individual defendants had not yet been served.
City answered the Complaint the same day.

Doc. 1 at 2.

The

Doc. 6 (Answer).

On

January 26, 2018, a second attorney entered her appearance on plaintiff’s
behalf.

See doc. 10.

When the City removed the case, the parties received this Court’s
General Order, which reminded them of their obligation to confer,

1

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), by the earlier of 60 days after service on
any defendant or 45 days after the appearance of any defendant (for
example by answer).

See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 26.1(a).

from December 29, 2017 was February 12, 2018.
date was February 27, 2018.

Forty-five days

Sixty days from that

The General Order also reminded the

parties of their duty to file, within 14 days of their conference date, a
written report conforming to the Local Rules.
26.1(b).

See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R.

The parties’ report was due, therefore, by no later than March

13, 2018.
Accordingly, within seven days of the date of this Order, the parties
are directed to confer and file a joint report explaining their failure.

In

addition to explaining why they failed to timely file the report in the first
place, the parties should also include all of the information otherwise
required under Local Rule 26.1(b) and this Court’s General Order (doc.
4).

Failure to comply may result in a recommendation of dismissal for

abandonment and violation of the Court’s rules and orders. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 41.1(c); Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App'x
116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[D]istrict court[s] possesses the inherent
power to police [their] docket[s]” and to prune out those cases left to
2

languish by their litigants) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
629-30 (1962)); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102
(11th Cir. 1989).
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2018.

3