Submitted: May 7, 2017
L. Rocanelli, Judge
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss GRANTED WITHOUT
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Matthew Roman ("Defendant"); the Complaint filed by
Plaintiff Jazmine Colatriano ("Plaintiff"); the
facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the
parties; the Superior Court Civil Rules; statutory and
decisional precedent; and the entire record in this case, the
Court hereby finds as follows:
Plaintiff worked for approximately two months as a part-time
office administrator at Nature's Way Medicine, P.C., a
primary care medical provider founded and operated by
Defendant, who is a physician.
Plaintiff makes various allegations regarding Defendant's
conduct towards Plaintiff during her employment at
Nature's Way Medicine. Plaintiff claims that
Defendant's conduct forced Plaintiff to resign from
Nature's Way Medicine on May 10, 2016, after only two
months of employment.
June 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Charge
Discrimination against Nature's Way Medicine - but not
against the Defendant in this case, Matthew Roman - with the
Delaware Department of Labor ("Department")
pursuant to the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act. On
November 7, 2016, the Department issued a Final Determination
and Right to Sue Notice, dismissing Plaintiff's case for
lack of jurisdiction and permitting Plaintiff to pursue her
cause of action against Nature's Way Medicine in Superior
January 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this
captioned matter against Defendant Matthew Roman, seeking
monetary damages for alleged losses as well as a Court order
mandating certain changes at Nature's Way Medicine.
Nature's Way Medicine is not a party to this lawsuit.
February 24, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss that
is currently before the Court. By Letter dated March 6, 2017,
the Court set a deadline of April 6, 2017 for Plaintiff's
response to the Motion to Dismiss and advised Plaintiff that
the Court would consider the Motion to Dismiss unopposed if
Plaintiff failed to file a response.
Letter dated April 6, 2017, Plaintiff requested an extension
to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and notified
the Court that Plaintiff planned to consult with an attorney.
Although the Court granted Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff
did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Letter dated May 10, 2017, Defendant requested that the Court
consider the Motion to Dismiss unopposed and dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and counsel has not appeared on Plaintiff's
Court recognizes that self-represented litigants may be held
to a less stringent standard in presenting their cases under
certain circumstances.However, "[l]itigants, whether
represented by counsel or appearing pro se, must
diligently prepare their cases for trial or risk dismissal
for failure to prosecute."Indeed, "[t]here is no
different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs, and
the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and
efficient administration of justice to accommodate the
this case, Plaintiff has failed to diligently pursue her
cause of action against Defendant, despite the Court's
efforts to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to remedy such
failures. The Court finds that Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss may be granted on the grounds of procedural ...