Daytona Tech Repair LLC et al v. MMI-CPR LLC et al
Filing
27
Order denying Defendant's Motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Related Doc # 23 ); and denying Motion to strike (Related Doc # 23 ). The Court expects the parties to actively pursue arbitration and engage in needed discovery. To that end, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report every ninety (90) days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to comply with the Court's Order, and for failure to prosecute. Judge David A. Ruiz on 1/29/2025. (H,Z)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAYTONA TECH REPAIR LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01093
Plaintiffs,
-vsJUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
MMI-CPR LLC, et al.,
ORDER
Defendants.
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Daytona Tech Repair LLC and DeLand Tech Repair LLC
(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants MMI-CPR, LLC and Assurant, Inc. (“Defendants”) jointly filed a
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. (R. 17). On October 7, 2022, the Court granted
that motion (R. 20). After receiving no update for nearly two years, the Court ordered the parties to
file a Joint Status Report. After the filing of the Joint Status Report (R. 22), Defendant filed a
Motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, Motion to strike
class allegations on October 18, 2024. (R. 23). Plaintiff opposed said motion (R. 25), and Defendant
filed a reply in support. (R. 26).
It appears very little has been done in furtherance of this matter since the Court stayed the
case. Plaintiff’s counsel explains the lack of diligence in this action by pointing to his representation
of plaintiffs in thirty other arbitration proceedings against the same Defendant. (R. 25). Plaintiff
also contends that Defendants have created “the majority of delays.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff argues
that this Court lacks authority to dismiss a case that has been stayed pending arbitration.1 Id.
Plaintiff does not dispute that arbitration has been on inactive status since this case was
stayed, or that Plaintiff only requested the arbitration case be moved to active status in November
2024—after Defendant moved for dismissal. (R. 25, PageID# 476-477). Plaintiff filed this action
and bears the burden of prosecuting it, or the arbitration while this action is stayed. Nevertheless,
reviewing the materials cited by the parties, it appears both sides have contributed to the extensive
delay. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to dismiss/Motion to strike class
allegations. (R. 23).
Unlike the past two years, the Court expects the parties to actively pursue arbitration and
engage in needed discovery. To that end, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report every ninety
(90) days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to
comply with the Court’s Order, and for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 29, 2025
1
s/ David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States District Judge
While the Court need not decide this issue at this time, the Court is highly skeptical that Smith v.
Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475-78 (2024) implicitly stripped district courts of their authority to dismiss
actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court’s orders. Other courts have not
engaged in such an expansive interpretation. See, e.g., Yanez v. DISH Network, LLC, No. 21-CV00129, 2024 WL 3016565, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2024) (dismissing case stayed pending
arbitration for failure to prosecute and rejecting argument that Smith prevented such an action);
McCollough v. Flying Horse, Inc., No. 24-CV-153, 2024 WL 4181781, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 12,
2024) (expressly indicating that—even after Smith—“[f]ailure to timely file the required reports
will result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a Court
Order.”)
2
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?