Kopp v. Pan Am Collections, Incorporated

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/17/2019 GRANTING 20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NATHANIEL KOPP,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-368-pp

PAN AM COLLECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE (DKT. NO. 20)

This FDCPA case has a bit of a tortured history. The plaintiff,
represented by New Jersey counsel, filed the complaint in March 2017. Dkt.
No. 1. The court set discovery and dispositive motions deadlines; neither party
filed a dispositive motion. At a status conference in June 2018, the defendant
expressed an intent to try the case; the court responded that it was shocked
that the parties could not resolve this straightforward FDCPA case. Dkt. No. 8.
It encouraged the parties to consider mediation. Id. The parties followed up by
asking the court to set a dispositive motions deadline—despite the fact that the
one the court previously set had passed. Dkt. No. 10. The court referred the
case to Judge Goodstein for mediation. Dkt. No. 11. Judge Goodstein set the
mediation hearing for September 27, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Dkt. No. 14. The day
before the mediation, counsel for the plaintiff asked to appear by phone. Dkt.
No. 15. This court denied that motion. Dkt. No. 16. In a letter later that day,
1

counsel indicated that he and the plaintiff would not be attending the
mediation; he indicated that he’d offered to dismiss the case with prejudice,
but that he had not heard back from counsel for the defendant. Dkt. No. 17.
Neither side showed up for the mediation (although Judge Goodstein did), dkt.
no. 18; Judge Goodstein returned the case to this court.
On October 15, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). Dkt. No. 20. The plaintiff states that the parties
could not agree on to a stipulated dismissal, because the defendant “refuses to
even entertain the possibility of settlement and wishes to proceed to trial.” Id.
at 1. According to counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant did not agree to
dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 2.
The defendant has not filed any response to the plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss his own case with prejudice. While the court is mystified by the
defendant’s obstreperousness, and by the way both parties have litigated this
case, it has no objection to the motion to dismiss, and sees no point in going
forward with the case.
The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this case with prejudice.
Dkt. No. 20. The court DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2