SHIHADEH
v.
I MICHELIN LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court dismissed claims against defendant Iyamille Michelin for the plaintiff's failure to properly serve her within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and failure to respond to a show cause order. The dismissal was without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile.
The court dismissed the complaint against Iyamille Michelin without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. The dismissal was based on the plaintiff's failure to properly serve the defendant within the required timeframe and failure to respond to the show cause order.
[1] A complaint may be dismissed against a defendant for failure to effect service within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or any court-ordered ext…
[2] A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may dismiss a plaintiffs claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket.”
Establishes the court's authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with rules and orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a complaint on June 13, 2023, against I Michelin LLC and Iyamille Michelin. Plaintiff properly served I Michelin LLC and moved for def…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inherent Authority To Manage Docket cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on review of the file. The Complaint in this action was filed on June 13, 2023. Doc. 1. Plaintiff properly served Defendant I Michelin LLC and later moved for default judgment. Docs. 6, 11. However, Plaintiff appears not to have properly served Defendant Iyamille Michelin, sued individually, within the 90 days allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or as further extended by the Court.
Therefore, on June 4, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days by a written response as to why the Complaint as brought against Iyamille Michelin should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Doc. 25. The order noted that failure to respond would result in dismissal of this action as to Iyamille Michelin, without prejudice, without further notice. Id. As Plaintiff has failed to respond, the complaint is due to be dismissed as against Iyamille Michelin and the case is due to be closed.
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute her case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F. 3d at 1337. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a written response indicating why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve a defendant within fourteen days. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order or seek an extension of time.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED as to Iyamille Michelin, without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 9, 2024.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties 2