WILLIAMSPORT – A Pennsylvania federal judge has dismissed a South Carolina woman’s suit surrounding the death of her partner at an after-hours pub in Tioga for failure to prosecute, more than two years after it was initially filed.
On June 13, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed litigation brought by Tayla Moore (as Administrator of the Estate of Jahrell Jenkins, deceased, and as mother and legal guardian of the minor children, J.J. and L.J.), versus Fred’s Woodshed, Inc. and Fred Heffelfinger, Jr. (also known as “Fred Brown”).
According to the suit, the decedent Jahrell Jenkins and friends patronized Fred’s Woodshed in celebration of his 20th Birthday, on May 30, 2020. It was asserted that alcoholic beverages were served to individuals under the age of 21 at this time, in violation of the law.
When an altercation erupted inside of the pub around 3:30 a.m., after the premises should have been closed for the night, bouncers and security moved those involved in the fracas out to the parking lot. At that place and time, the decedent was shot in the back by an unknown assailant and transported to UPMC Wellsboro for medical treatment, where he passed away.
Moore then filed suit against the establishment and its owner in April 2022, for negligence and her partner’s wrongful death. However, the plaintiff did not pursue the case for two years, leading Brann to issue an order on April 5 to show cause within the following 60 days as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. According to Brann, his order met with no response from Moore.
In reaching a decision here, Brann said, the Court is required to consider six factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Poulis v. State Farm Fire Insurance & Casualty Company: “(1) The extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) The prejudice to the [adversary]; (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 claims or defense.”
“Since the Court granted the motion to withdraw as attorney on April 4, 2024, Moore has been proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the responsibility for her failure to respond to the Court’s April 5, 2024 order is solely her own. As such, this factor supports dismissal. Ordinarily prejudice to the adversary would support dismissal, as this case has remained dormant for two years. However, the defendants have never once appeared. This factor is neutral under these circumstances. ‘Extensive or repeated delay or delinquency constitutes a history of dilatoriness.’ The Third Circuit has held ‘that ‘extensive’ delay can create a history of dilatoriness.’ This means that the plaintiff ‘does nothing…’ As a result, plaintiff’s behavior supports dismissal under this factor. She has not advanced this case for approximately two years. This exemplifies a clear history of dilatoriness,” Brann said.
“Next, I must determine whether plaintiff’s conduct was willful or taken in faith. Nothing in the record before the Court suggests that Moore acted in bad faith, but her conduct was willful. As discussed above, Moore did not advance this case for approximately two years. More critically, she failed to respond to the Court’s April 5, 2024 show cause order that had been mailed to her address on file. As the Third Circuit has stated, ‘absence of reasonable excuses may suggest that the conduct was willful or in bad faith.’ Here, plaintiff has not offered any excuse, let alone a reasonable one. Consequently, this factor supports dismissal. When determining if dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate, the Court is required to evaluate the effectiveness of other sanctions. I conclude that lesser sanctions would be completely ineffective. While the Court may impose a monetary fine, there is no indication that Moore would respond. When faced with a non-responsive party, any action short of dismissal would fall on deaf ears. I therefore conclude that this factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court is required to evaluate the meritoriousness of plaintiff’s claims. As the defendants have never once appeared and responded to the allegations, Moore would be able to pursue a default judgment. Thus, this factor counsels against dismissal.”
After carefully weighing the six Poulis factors, Brann concluded that four of those factors supported dismissing this case with prejudice. Subsequently, Brann ordered that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:22-cv-00576
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com