From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green v. Associates Commercial Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 5, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-1270 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2003)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-1270.

February 5, 2003


ORDER


AND NOW, this day of February, 2003, upon consideration of (i) Associate Commercial Corporation's ("Associates") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and for Other Sanctions based on Plaintiff's repeated disregard of this Court's orders (Document No. 37, filed November 19, 2002); and (ii) Associates' Letter Brief in further support of its Motion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may grant a defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal based on "the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or any order of court." In Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the Third Circuit expounded on Rule 41(b) by announcing a non-exclusive six-prong test for assessing Rule 41(b) motions — the Poulis factors. The six Poulis factors are: (i) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (ii) the prejudice to the adversary; (iii) a history of dilatoriness; (iv) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (v) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal; and (vi) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Id. at 868. See also Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).

The Third Circuit acknowledged that a dismissal with prejudice, such as a Rule 41(b) dismissal, is a "drastic" sanction, Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867, and that "the harsher the sanction being imposed, the more the balance will have to be against the party being sanctioned to justify the sanction,"Estate of Spear v. C.I.R., 41 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 1984). Rule 41(b) is an extreme sanction and must be issued with caution. See Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868. With these principles of restraint in mind, this Court has carefully balanced the sixPoulis factors, and hereby concludes that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.


Summaries of

Green v. Associates Commercial Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 5, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-1270 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2003)
Case details for

Green v. Associates Commercial Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WALTER TYRONE GREEN and GERTRUDE GREEN, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATES…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 5, 2003

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-1270 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2003)

Citing Cases

Pressley v. Forrest

The Third Circuit has cautioned, "the harsher the sanction being imposed, the more the balance will have to…