Troy M. Boone v. Courtesy Boat Rentals & Yacht Charters Inc. , 537 F. App'x 916 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14896 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 12-14896
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-62504-WJZ
TROY M. BOONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COURTESY BOAT RENTALS & YACHT CHARTER, INC.,
d.b.a. Best Boat Club & Rentals,
CLEVELAND HOUSE, INC.,
ALAN J. RUBIN, a Florida Resident,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
__________________________
(October 23, 2013)
Before MARTIN, FAY and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14896 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Troy Boone challenges on appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
action for answering a motion thirty days late. The parties agree that the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing the action with neither a clear record of
delay nor a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice. We vacate the district
court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
On January 6, 2012, Courtesy Boat Rentals & Yacht Charters (“Courtesy”)
filed a motion to dismiss Boone’s complaint. Local Rule 7(1)(c) required Boone to
respond to the motion by January 23, 2012. Boone failed to file his response until
February 22, 2012. The case proceeded for over three months with the court
referring the case to mediation, setting the date for a pre-trial conference, and
providing trial instructions. Then, without warning, the court dismissed Boone’s
action with prejudice because he failed to respond to the motion to dismiss within
seventeen days as required by Local Rule 7(1)(C). Boone moved the court for
relief from the judgment due to excusable neglect and explained that he had made
a simple calendaring error. The court summarily denied Boone’s motion.
Parties must meet deadlines in order to preserve the efficiency of our busy
district courts. And yet, despite an abundance of care, mistakes will no doubt
occur for “to err is human.” The drastic sanction of dismissing a case with
prejudice is only proper where “there is a clear record of delay or willful contempt
2
Case: 12-14896 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 Page: 3 of 3
and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d
189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
We review a district court’s order dismissing an action for failure to comply
with local rules for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 192. Both parties agree—and our
independent review of the record convinces us—that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing this action without a clear record of delay or a finding that
lesser sanctions would not suffice. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
order dismissing the case and remand for further proceedings. 1
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
Appellant has filed an unopposed motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to
correct deficient allegations of jurisdiction. The motion is GRANTED.
3