Bakir Abdus-Sabur v. Transunion LLC

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-13339
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BAKIR ABDUS-SABUR, Civil Action No. Plaintiff, 25-cv-013339 (SDW) (JRA) v.

TRANSUNION LLC, REPORT AND Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER being raised sua sponte to address pro se Plaintiff Bakir Abdus- Sabur’s refusal to obey court orders via his failure to appear to two prior scheduled initial scheduling conferences and an Order to Show Cause hearing. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 12-13, 16-17; and Plaintiff having filed a Complaint against Defendant on July 15, 2025, alleging that Defendant Transunion LLC violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681(g)(a)(1), see generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1; and Defendant having filed an Answer on August 11, 2025, Dkt. No. 6; and the Court having scheduled an Initial Scheduling Conference on October 31, 2025 (the “First Initial Scheduling Conference”), Dkt. No. 10; and notice of the First Initial Scheduling Conference being sent to Plaintiff’s address of record, 21 Andover Ave, Plainfield, NJ, 07060 (“Plaintiff’s Address”), via regular U.S. Mail; and Plaintiff having failed to appear at the First Initial Scheduling Conference on October 31, 2025, Dkt. No. 12-13; and the Court having rescheduled the Initial Scheduling Conference to November 13, 2025 (the “Second Initial Scheduling Conference), Dkt. No. 13; and notice of the Second Initial Scheduling Conference being sent to Plaintiff’s

Address via regular U.S. Mail; and Plaintiff having failed to appear at the Second Initial Scheduling Conference on November 13, 2025, Dkt. No. 16-17; and the Court having ordered Plaintiff to show cause “on November 24, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. . . . as to why the complaint should not be dismissed as a sanction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f),” for his failure to appear to the two scheduled

conferences (“Order to Show Cause”), Dkt. No. 17; and notice of the Order to Show Cause having been sent Plaintiff’s Address via regular U.S. Mail and Certified Mail (Receipt No. 9589071052701770092438); and Plaintiff having failed to appear at the hearing for the Order to Show Cause held on November 24, 2025; and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure vesting this Court with the inherent authority to recommend dismissal of an action sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f)(1)(C) (“On motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party . . . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.”). and Rule 37(b) allowing the District Court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); see also Lee v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 455 F. App’x 199, 201–02 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming Rule 37 dismissal due to plaintiff’s repeated refusal to appear for a court-ordered deposition); and Rule 41(b) similarly permitting dismissal of a suit sua sponte for failure to prosecute or based on failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see

also Shields v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F. App’x 857, 858 (3d Cir. 2012); and dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operating as an adjudication on the merits, unless the court’s order specifies otherwise. Reigle v. Riesh, 635 F. App’x 8, 10 (3d Cir. 2015); and, when deciding whether the sanction of dismissal is proper, courts typically engage in a balancing analysis of the following six factors: (1) the extent of

the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense, Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); and balancing the Poulis factors becomes unnecessary when a litigant’s

conduct “makes adjudication of [the] case impossible.” Abulkhair v. New Century Fin. Servs., Inc., 467 F. App’x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454–55 (3d Cir.1994)), and Plaintiff rendering it impossible to adjudicate this case by failing to appear at the prior scheduled Initial Scheduling Conferences and the hearing for the Order to Show Cause. IT IS, THEREFORE, on this 25th day of November 2025, RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 16(f), Rule 37(b), and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.! The parties have fourteen days to file and serve objections to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); L.Civ.R. 72.1(c)(2).

Respectfully submitted, fp JOSE R. ALMONTE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: November 25, 2025

! Considering the dispositive nature of the recommended sanction, the Court decides this matter by way of a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).