Fedder v. Simpson

D. Delaware

Fedder v. Simpson

DecidedSeptember 13, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00463

StatusUnknown

This text of Fedder v. Simpson (Fedder v. Simpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fedder v. Simpson, (D. Del. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CHRISTOPHER J. FEDDER, : Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 24-463-GBW CHARLES SIMPSON, Defendant. : MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington, this 14th day of September 2024; Defendant appears to have received a summons in this action on June 4, 2024. (D.L 3.) To date, counsel for Defendant has not entered an appearance in this matter, and the deadline to answer the Complaint has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to seek entry of default in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although courts grant pro se plaintiffs leniency in considering their filings, pro se plaintiffs are nevertheless expected to “follow the rules of procedure and the substantive law[.]” Thompson v. Target Stores, 501 F. Supp. 2d 601, 603 (D. Del. 2007); see also Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245, 58 V.I. 691 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that “pro se litigants must . . . abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.”). A plaintiff fails to prosecute his case when he does not seek a default against a non-responsive defendant. See Park v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 380 F. App’x 190 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute when plaintiff did not seek default against non-responsive defendants). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and Local Rule 41.1, when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case, it may be dismissed sua sponte.

See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962); Donnelly v. JohnsManville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 341 (3d Cir. 1982) (“The rule does not explicitly provide for sua sponte dismissals by the court, but we believed that it is broad enough to authorize such dismissals on the same basis as it authorizes dismissals upon motion of the defendant.”). Now therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must prosecute his case or otherwise show cause why it should not be dismiss¢d) for failure to prosecute, on or before 14th day of October 2024. if j_ / f f his. The Honorable Gregory B. Williams United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CHRISTOPHER J. FEDDER, : Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 24-463-GBW CHARLES SIMPSON, Defendant. : MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington, this 14th day of September 2024; Defendant appears to have received a summons in this action on June 4, 2024. (D.L 3.) To date, counsel for Defendant has not entered an appearance in this matter, and the deadline to answer the Complaint has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to seek entry of default in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although courts grant pro se plaintiffs leniency in considering their filings, pro se plaintiffs are nevertheless expected to “follow the rules of procedure and the substantive law[.]” Thompson v. Target Stores, 501 F. Supp. 2d 601, 603 (D. Del. 2007); see also Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245, 58 V.I. 691 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that “pro se litigants must . . . abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.”). A plaintiff fails to prosecute his case when he does not seek a default against a non-responsive defendant. See Park v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 380 F. App’x 190 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute when plaintiff did not seek default against non-responsive defendants). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and Local Rule 41.1, when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case, it may be dismissed sua sponte.

See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962); Donnelly v. JohnsManville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 341 (3d Cir. 1982) (“The rule does not explicitly provide for sua sponte dismissals by the court, but we believed that it is broad enough to authorize such dismissals on the same basis as it authorizes dismissals upon motion of the defendant.”). Now therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must prosecute his case or otherwise show cause why it should not be dismiss¢d) for failure to prosecute, on or before 14th day of October 2024. if j_ / f f his. The Honorable Gregory B. Williams United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fedder v. Simpson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedder-v-simpson-ded-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack