Schoemehl v. Unwin

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/7/19. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES P. SCHOEMEHL,JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.

JEANNINE UNWIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-cv-00031-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jeannine Unwin's second status report.
(Doc. No. 17). For the reasons set forth below, this case wtll be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Orders.

I.

Background

On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action for damages arising out of a contract
dispute surrounding the purchase of The Metropolitan Cosmetic Laser Center. (Doc. No. 1).
On May 1, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case
pending arbitration, and directed the parties to submit a joint status report updating the Court on
the status of the case every six months. (Doc. No. 14).
'

On November 1, 2018, _Defendant submitted a status report stating that Plaintiff had not
commenced arbitration proceedings, nor did Plaintiff participate in filing the status report. On
November 7, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and comply with the Court's Order
compelling arbitration.. Plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline set by the Court. To date,

Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.
On May 1, 2019, Defendant filed a second status report stating that Plaintiff had not
commenced any arbitration proceedings, nor had Plaintiffs counsel communicated with
Defendant's counsel about arbitration, the filing of a joint status report, or any other matters.

II.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a case
based on a plaintiffs failure to prosecute or a plaintiffs failure to-comply with a court order.
The United States Supreme Court has held that although Rule 41 (b) does not expressly address
the Court's authority to dismiss a case sua sponie for failure to prosecute or failure to comply
with a court order, "The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the
control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has found that the court has the power to dismiss a case sua
sponte for failure to comply with a court order. See Haley v. Kansas City Star, 761 F.2d 489,

490 (8th Cir. 1985) ("A district court may, on its own motion, dismiss an action for failure of
the plaintiff to comply with any order of the court.").
Even where dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order is
appropriate, dismissal with prejudice is an "extreme sanction" that is appropriate only in cases
of "willful disobedience of a court order or where a litigant exhibits a pattern of intentional
delay." Siems v. City of Minneapolis, 560 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hunt v. City
of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000)); see also Givens v. A.H Robins Co., Inc.,
2

751 F.2d 261,263 (8th Cir. 1984) ("Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should
be

used

in

cases

of willful

disobedience

of

a

court

order

or

continued

persistent failure to prosecute a complaint.").
Here, Plaintiff has not filed anything in this case since March 30, 2018. (Doc. No. 12).
Since the Court compelled arbitration on May 1, 2018, Plaintiff has not initiated arbitration
proceedings or participated in the submission of a joint status report. Moreover, Plaintiff
failed to respond to the Court's Order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
The Court has carefully considered the appropriate sanction in this case. In light of
Plaintiffs complete lack of participation in the case for over a year and failure to respond to the
show cause order, the Court believes that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Any lesser
sanction would prove futile.

III.

Conclusion

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A
Dated this 7th th day of May, 2019.

3

OSS
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE