Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SRA Investments, LLC v. Meritor, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

May 15, 2018

SRA INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. PLAINTIFFS
v.
MERITOR, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This environmental action is before the Court on the defendants' motion to dismiss Linda Singleton's claims with prejudice. Doc. #352.

         I

         Relevant Procedural History

         On July 1, 2016, the plaintiffs in this action filed an amended complaint against Meritor, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., The Boeing Company, and Textron, Inc. Doc. #46. The amended complaint asserts various claims against the defendants arising from pollution allegedly caused by the operation of a manufacturing plant in Grenada County, Mississippi. Id. at ¶ 1.

         On October 12, 2017, the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Linda Singleton, one of the plaintiffs, based on Singleton's refusal “to participate in the prosecution of this matter, to communicate with … counsel, … or to answer discovery propounded to her.” Doc. #268 at 1. Approximately two weeks later, on October 25, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel discovery from Singleton. Doc. #295. The motion asserted that the defendants served two sets of interrogatories and requests for documents on Singleton (one on September 27, 2016, and the other on February 22, 2017), and that Singleton did not respond to either set. Id. at 2.

         On November 6, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued an order which granted the motion to compel and denied the motion to withdraw. Doc. #331. The order directed Singleton to respond to the discovery requests within fourteen days and warned “that … failure to do so will likely result in a report and recommendation that her case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.” Id. at 2.

         Singleton did not respond to the discovery requests and the defendants, on November 20, 2017, filed a motion to dismiss Singleton “for lack of prosecution, for … refusal to participate in discovery, and for … failure to comply with the Court's orders.” Doc. #352 at 1. On November 28, 2017, counsel for the plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion. Doc. #363. The response states:

Plaintiffs' counsel has provided to Ms. Singleton … notice of this Motion to Dismiss, and requested that she contact any representative of Plaintiffs' legal team to discuss moving forward with her claim or to provide instruction that her claim be abandoned. Ms. Singleton has not responded.
Given these circumstances, the undersigned is not in a position to confess the Defendants' instant motion, but also is unable to make a good-faith argument in opposition.

Id. at 2.

         II

         Analysis

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 grants a district court authority to dismiss an action for, among other things, a plaintiff's failure to obey a discovery order or serve answers to interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (d). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.