Syrrakos v. Def Jam Recordings et al

Filing 11

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on June 26, 2015: The court DISMISSES without prejudice the complaint filed by the plaintiff on September 26, 2014. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff)(pwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER J. SYRRAKOS,

Case No. 14-cv-1197-pp

Plaintiff,
v.
DEF JAM RECORDINGS and
JAY WAYNE JENKINS,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
_____________________________________________________________________________
On September 26, 2014, plaintiff Christopher Syrakkos filed a pro se
complaint, which brought an action for copyright infringement against Def Jam
Recordings, Universal Music Group, and Jay Wayne Jenkins. Dkt. No. 1. With
the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
and the court granted that motion. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4.
In his October 7, 2014 decision and order granting the plaintiff leave to
proceed without paying the filing fee, Judge Randa (the judge who originally
was assigned the plaintiff’s case) stated, “As an aside, the Court is skeptical
that it will be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this
case.” Dkt. No. 4 at 2. The court noted that defendant Def Jam Recordings was
located in California, and that defendant Jay Wayne Jenkins (“Young Jeezy”)
was from Atlanta. Id. Nonetheless, the court noted that “courts generally
refrain from exploring personal jurisdiction sua sponte because it is an

1

affirmative defense that can be waived,” and so it did not “speculate as to the
type or quality of the defendants’ contacts with the State of Wisconsin.” Id.
Accordingly, the court asked the marshal’s service to try to serve the two
defendants. Id.
On December 31, 2014, the clerk’s office transmitted the complaint to
the United States Marshal’s Service for service. On March 31, 2015, the
marshals returned unexecuted the summons as to Jay Wayne Jenkins. Dkt.
No. 6. On April 8, 2015, the marshals returned unexecuted the summons as to
Def Jam Recordings. Dkt. No. 7. On April 10, 2015, the clerk’s office entered
the unexecuted waivers of service. Dkt. No. 8.
When the court learned that the marshals had been unable to serve the
defendants, the court set a status conference for May 11, 2015. The plaintiff
appeared in person at the conference. At the hearing, the court explained that
it tries to assist pro se litigants when they run into problems serving the
complaint. Dkt. No. 10 at 1. The court determined, however, that the marshals
had gone above and beyond to try to serve the defendants, and that without
more information—an address, for example—they could go no further. Id.
The court asked the plaintiff how he would like to proceed with. Id. The
plaintiff informed the court that he thought he could obtain an address for
defendant Jenkins. Id. He also made it clear that he wanted to prosecute the
case further. Id. He indicated that he believed that the defendants were aware
that he’d sued them, and that they were trying to elude service. Id. The court
informed the plaintiff that the law required the court to dismiss a case if the
2

plaintiff hadn’t served it within 120 days, and that while the court could extend
that deadline, it could not do so indefinitely. Id.
Because the plaintiff thought he could provide the court with additional
information about the defendants’ addresses, the court gave the plaintiff a
deadline of June 19, 2015 to do so. Id. at 2. The plaintiff had until that date to
file any addresses he could find, and to file any proof that the defendants knew
of this lawsuit. Id. As of the date of this order, the plaintiff has not filed
anything with the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states that if a defendant has not served the
complaint within 120 days after it was filed, the court “must dismiss the action
without prejudice,” or order that service be effectuated within a date certain.
The plaintiff filed his complaint on September 26, 2014; the 120-day deadline
specified by Rule 4(m) was January 26, 2015. The court extended the deadline
to June 19, 2015, but as of that date (in fact, as of the date of this order), the
plaintiff has not provided the court with any additional information. It has now
been 273 days—over nine months—since the plaintiff filed his complaint, and it
has yet to be served on the defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case for failure to
prosecute. The United States Supreme Court allows a court to dismiss a case
for failure to prosecute sua sponte--on its own initiative--in order “to manage
[its] own affairs” and “to achieve the orderly . . . disposition of cases.” Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). A district court may dismiss a
case without explicit warning, when the plaintiff is “on notice that [his or her]
3

inactivity” has caused the court to consider taking such action. Thomas v.
National Educ. Ass’n—South Bend, No. 14-1639, 2015 WL 113662 at *2 (7th
Cir. 2015). A court has given adequate warning “so long as there is due
warning that dismissal is a real possibility.” Id. When a party seeks the
assistance of “the judicial system by filing a lawsuit, . . . it can not [sic] decide
for itself when it feels like pressing its action or when it feels like taking a
break.” James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005).
The plaintiff filed this case over nine months ago. As of the time the court
held the status hearing on May 11, 2015, the plaintiff had never contacted the
court to find out the status of his case, nor made any appearance other than
the filing of the complaint. Although the plaintiff appeared at the status
conference on May 11, 2015, the court has not heard from him since. Despite
the court’s June 19, 2015 deadline, the plaintiff has not produced any
additional information about the defendants’ addresses or their potential
knowledge of this suit. While the court understands the challenges of pursuing
a case without an attorney, it cannot allow the case to sit indefinitely; it warned
the plaintiff of this fact when he appeared at the May 11 status. Therefore, the

4

court will dismiss this case. It does so without prejudice. If the plaintiff later
finds the addresses he needs, he may file a new complaint.
The court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint filed by
Christopher Syrrakos on September 26, 2014.
Dated at Milwaukee, this 26th day of June, 2015.

5