Jackson et al v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers et al
Filing
69
ORDER setting deadline for all plaintiffs and Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute for all remaining plaintiffs (due 9/3/13). Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (MBea)
Jackson et al v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers et al
Doc. 69
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROCHELLE JACKSON, et al.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-cv-13832
v.
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA ("UAW"), et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR ALL PLAINTIFFS AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE FOR ALL REMAINING PLAINTIFFS
This is an action under the National Labor Relations Act by automotive manufacturing
employees against their union, the UAW and locals, for an alleged breach of the duty of fair
representation. On December 4, 2012, after more than two years of proceedings, Plaintiffs'
attorneys moved to withdraw as counsel of record and to dismiss certain plaintiffs. ECF No.
54. On January 31, 2013, the Court held a hearing and granted the motion, and agreed to
give the plaintiffs who wished to continue litigating the case additional time to find new
counsel. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately one hundred thirty-one
plaintiffs. Thirty-one of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the litigation before the hearing;
an additional forty-eight apparently withdrew after the hearing. See Stip. and Orders to
Withdraw, ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61.
The Court entered an Order to Show Cause on May 23, 2013, requiring all remaining
plaintiffs to advise the Court of his or her intention to prosecute the case pro se, or have
a newly retained attorney enter an appearance on the docket. On June 21, 2013, named
plaintiff Rochelle Jackson wrote the Court, stating she had found an attorney, Kenneth
Dockets.Justia.com
Myers, willing to represent the remaining plaintiffs, and requesting an additional month to
ensure all possible remaining plaintiffs (many of whom do not necessarily have up-to-date
contact information) could be contacted and told about the possibility of retaining Myers.
See Letter, ECF No. 66. Finally, on July 20, 2013, Myers entered an appearance on the
docket. ECF No. 67. Although entered as to all plaintiffs, Myers stated he is still uncertain
of precisely how many plaintiffs he will be representing and is working diligently to contact
as many of them as possible. Id. at 1-2.
To ensure the case will move forward, and to finalize the list of remaining plaintiffs, the
Court will issue a final order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute as to all remaining plaintiffs, and also issue the following orders. The
Court will set a general deadline of Tuesday, September 3, 2013, for the list of plaintiffs to
be finalized. The Court will also order Kenneth Myers to submit to the Court, on or before
September 3, 2013, a final list of clients he will be representing, and formally indicate on
the docket for whom he is counsel.
Finally, the Court will order all remaining plaintiffs to either have their own attorney file
an appearance on the docket, or inform the Court in writing they intend to proceed pro se
by the same date. That is: Every plaintiff who wishes to remain a part of the action must
have either (1) been identified by Kenneth Myers as his client, (2) had his or her own
separate attorney enter an appearance on the docket, or (3) informed the Court in writing
they intend to proceed pro se.1 If a plaintiff has not contacted the Court or had a retained
attorney file an appearance on the docket by September 3, 2013, he or she will be
dismissed from the case. See Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999).
1
The Court notes that no plaintiff is required to be represented by Kenneth Myers; they
may choose any attorney to represent them they wish, or none at all.
2
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that counsel Kenneth Myers is required to
FILE a final list of the plaintiffs he intends to represent in this matter by September 3, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each individual plaintiff SHOW CAUSE why their
claims against defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The show
cause response is due by September 3, 2013. Each plaintiff must (1) been identified by
Kenneth Myers as his client, (2) had his or her own separate attorney enter an appearance
on the docket, or (3) informed the Court in writing they intend to proceed pro se.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: August 8, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on August 8, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Case Manager
3
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?