Rogers v. International Hair Institute, LLC, et al., No. 1:2020cv01708 - Document 26 (N.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's motions to reinstate this action (ECF # 23 and # 24 ) are granted with the provision that Plaintiff will pay Defendants' costs incurred in responding to these motions. The dismissal order (ECF # 22 ) is withdrawn and this case is re-opened. IT SO SO ORDERED. IMPORTANT: Status Conference set for 2/8/2021 at 09:30 AM to be held telephonically before Judge Donald C. Nugent. Counsel are instructed to first initiate a conference call with all parties connected and then contact the Court. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 1/27/2021. (M,S)

Download PDF
Rogers v. International Hair Institute, LLC, et al. Doc. 26 Case: 1:20-cv-01708-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/27/21 1 of 4. PageID #: 144 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:20-cv-01708-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/27/21 2 of 4. PageID #: 145 Case: 1:20-cv-01708-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/27/21 3 of 4. PageID #: 146 who was also ill. Eventually,Mr. Rohl returned the call to defense counsel who informed him that the Court had dismissed the case. Mr. Rohl contends that there was no willful attempt to avoid this Court's order or to miss the status conference. A Court may dismiss a Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or a court order. See Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359,362-63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit examines the following four factors to determine if dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) is appropriate: (1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness,bad faith,or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Id at 363 citing Stough v. Mayville Community Sch., 138 F.3d 612,615 (6th Cir.1998). Although typically none of the factors is outcome dispositive, a case is properly dismissed by the district court where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. Carter v. City ofMemphis, 636 F.2d 159,161 (6th Cir.1980). While dismissal is proper in this case under these four factors,the Court will accept Mr. Rohl's assertion that his conduct in missing the two court conferences was not willful or done in bad faith. His neglect may be excused by the unusual circumstances involving his illness and the closing of his office due to the illness of his staff. Notwithstanding Mr. Rohl's excuses, Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiffs conduct because it has caused Defendants to incur expenses to comply with court orders and to respond to Plaintiffs Motions to Reinstate the case. Accordingly,Plaintiffs motions to reinstate this action (ECF # 23 and #24) are granted with the provision that Plaintiff will pay Defendants' costs incurred in responding to these motions. 3 Case: 1:20-cv-01708-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/27/21 4 of 4. PageID #: 147

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.