SANCHEZ v. RESI SFR SUB, LLC ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 1:22-cv-20355-JLK JANET COWLEY SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. RESI SFR SUB, LLC, Defendant. __________________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (DE 12), filed on June 8, 2022. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time to do so has passed. I. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in state court claiming negligence stemming from her allegedly slipping and falling at a rental home in Miami owned by Defendant. See Compl., DE 1-3 at 4. On February 2, 2022, Defendant removed this case to federal court upon discovering that there was complete diversity. See Not. of Removal, DE 1. On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed his amended motion to withdraw arguing that the attorney client relationship was no longer possible. See DE 10. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Damian (See DE 6 referring the original motion to withdraw (DE 3)) who granted the motion and relieved counsel of further responsibility in this case. See DE 11. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Damian ordered Plaintiff to “notify the Court of whether she intends to proceed pro se or if she has retained counsel” by May 31, 2022. Id. at 2. Magistrate Judge Damian’s order further warned Plaintiff that if she failed to notify the Court, her case may be subject to sanctions including dismissal. See id. On June 8, 2022, after the expiration of the deadline for Plaintiff to notify the Court as to the status of her legal representation, Defendant filed its instant Motion to Dismiss. See Mot. II. DISCUSSION The Eleventh Circuit has commented that “[a] district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). The district court has authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) to dismiss a case based upon a party’s failure to comply with court orders. Id. Dismissal is a sanction of last resort and “[a] finding of such extreme circumstances necessary to support the sanction of dismissal must, at a minimum, be based on evidence of willful delay . . . .” McKelvey v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 789 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). However, “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Defendant argues that “[a]s of the date of this Motion, there has been no formal appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Ms. Sanchez has not filed a pro se consent form.” Mot. at 2. The Court agrees and finds that Plaintiff did not notify the Court of the status of her representation by May 31, 2022. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order. Further, Plaintiff’s failure was willful because Plaintiff was forewarned about a potential dismissal in Magistrate Judge Damian’s Order (DE 11) and did not comply. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 12) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 1-3) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida this 14th day of July, 2022. uw {JAMES LAWRENCE KING *° # Loonoon ff UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUYGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ce: All counsel of record Clerk of the Court