Harris et al v. Tellico Services, Inc. et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgement Order. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 1/20/15. (c/m) (ADA) (Main Document 37 replaced on 1/20/2015, to correct document reference) (ADA).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

FRANKLIN HARRIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TELLICO SERVICES, INC. and
SHORT BARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) No. 3:13-CV-577-PLR-HBG
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion for entry of an order
dismissing this action due to the failure of the remaining plaintiffs to file any response to
the dispositive motions filed by defendants, or otherwise prosecute this action [R. 35].
Plaintiffs are current or former employees of defendants, who alleged that
defendants violated the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq., in connection with a
layoff that occurred in March 2013.
On July 22, 2014, defendant Tellico Services, Inc., filed its motion for summary
judgment. 1 On September 17, 2014, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw. By
order entered September 30, 2014, the court granted the motion to withdraw by plaintiffs’
counsel and imposed a sixty-day stay and extension of all deadlines. Upon expiration of
1

Defendant Short Bark Industries, Inc., filed its motion for summary judgment on
October 9, 2014.

the sixty-day stay, the court’s order provided that plaintiffs would have ten additional
days to file a response to the pending summary judgment motions.

The order

admonished plaintiffs that they were deemed to be proceeding pro se, and they were
required to stay up to date on the status of the case and comply with the deadlines set by
the court.
Fourteen of the original twenty plaintiffs have filed stipulations of dismissal
leaving six plaintiffs -- David Potorski, Justin Randolph, Jacob Shaw, Holly Stamey,
Megan Stamey, and Kayla Radford -- with pending claims. No response has been filed
by any plaintiff to the defendants’ dispositive motions.
It is clear to the court that the remaining plaintiffs have no desire to prosecute this
action.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion [R.35] is GRANTED, and this action is

hereby DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Enter:

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2