Jardines Ltd. Partnership v. Executive Homesearch Realty Services, Inc.
Jardines Ltd. Partnership v. Executive Homesearch Realty Services, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is co-defendant Executive Homeseareh Realty Services, Inc.’s (“Executive Homeseareh”) motion requesting dismissal for lack of prosecution (Dkt. # 12). No opposition has been filed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on July 27, 1995. On September 25, 1995, co-defendant Executive Homeseareh answered the complaint and counterclaimed against co-plaintiff San Juan Park Limited Dividend Partnership (“San Juan Park”). In turn, co-defendant P & LL Universal Construction Corp. (“P & LL”) answered the complaint on October 11, 1995. San Juan Park answered the counterclaim on October 20, 1995. On May 23, 1996 plaintiffs filed a motion to substitute attorney Manuel San Juan for Isabel Vélez Serráno. The Court took notice of said motion on May 24, 1996. Then, on October 6,1997 plaintiffs filed a motion for J. Ramón Rivera and Isabel Vélez Serrano to withdraw as attorneys. Said motion was granted by this Court on October 8, 1997. To this date, plaintiffs have failed to appear with new counsel, nor have they informed the Court of any actions taken to appear represented by such. On March 25, 1998 co-defendant filed the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution which is presently before the Court.
DISCUSSION
Rule 41(b) provides for the involuntary dismissal of actions “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court____” Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b). It expressly authorizes a district court to dismiss a case with prejudice in order to punish a plaintiff for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) is one manifestation of the ancient and inherent power of a trial judge “to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of eases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). The decision is left to the sound discretion of the district court. See Enlace Mercantil Internacional, Inc. v. Senior Indus., Inc., 848 F.2d 315, 316 (1st Cir. 1988).
The Court is aware of First Circuit jurisprudence warning that dismissals for want of prosecution is a harsh sanction,
The power of the court to prevent undue delays must be weighed against the policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits. See Richman, supra, at 199; Dyotherm Corp. v. Turbo Machine Co., 392 F.2d 146, 149 (3rd Cir. 1968). Ultimately, however, plaintiff is responsible for developing and prosecuting its own ease. It is not the Court’s responsibility to function as its babysitter. The Court, in its sound discretion, finds that Rule 41(b) is meant to remedy situations such as the one presently before the Court.
WHEREFORE, in light of plaintifPs lack of prosecution, the court GRANTS co-defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 12). The above captioned ease is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JARDINES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. EXECUTIVE HOMESEARCH REALTY SERVICES, INC.
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published