Submitted: October 9, 2018
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss GRANTED
L. Rocanelli, Judge
consideration of the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant
Morenzo Conrad Matthew Palmer ("Defendant"); the
facts, arguments and legal authorities set forth by
Defendant; statutory and decisional law; and the entire
record in this case, the Court finds as follows:
August 8, 2016, Plaintiff Harry Fish ("Plaintiff")
brought this action against Defendant alleging that Plaintiff
suffered personal injuries as a result of an automobile
accident caused by Defendant.
November 2, 2017, Defendant filed Interrogatories and a
Request for Production Directed to Plaintiff. No response was
Order dated June 26, 2018, the Court granted the motion to
withdraw as counsel filed by Plaintiff's counsel.
represented litigant, resending Defendant's
Interrogatories and Request for Production and advising that
responses to discovery were overdue and that responses must
be received within twenty (20) days. No response was
September 19, 2018, Defendant moved to dismiss this action
pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
("Rule 41(b)") for failure to prosecute the action.
Letter dated September 24, 2018, the Court set a deadline of
October 8, 2018, 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.
Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or otherwise communicated with the Court or
Pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 16,
"parties must adhere to the trial judge's scheduling
order and conduct discovery 'in an orderly
fashion.'" If a party fails to obey the Court's
scheduling orders, the Court may impose sanctions, which may
include the sanction of dismissal. To that end, Rule 41(b)
allows a defendant to move for dismissal of an action for
"failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with
these rules, or any order of Court."
However, because the sanction of dismissal is severe,
dismissal is appropriate only if a lesser sanction cannot
cure the offending conduct. The Court considers six factors
when determining whether dismissal is appropriate:
(1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility;
(2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to
meet scheduling orders and ...