Professional Fighters League, LLC v. Millions.co Inc.

Background

Professional Fighters League, LLC brought a breach-of-contract action against Millions.co Inc. The plaintiff, which was represented by counsel, filed its complaint on October 25, 2024. The court later scheduled an initial conference and required the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management materials. Those materials were not submitted, so the conference was not held. The opinion also states that the plaintiff never filed a request for issuance of a summons.

The court then ordered the plaintiff to explain why it had not served the summons and complaint within the 90 days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or, if service had occurred, to state when and how it was made. The plaintiff did not file the required letter by the initial deadline or by two later deadlines, despite orders warning that the case would be dismissed. The opinion states that the plaintiff had not filed anything on the docket since the complaint.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with court rules or orders. The court considered the duration of the noncompliance, whether the plaintiff had notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendant, the court’s interest in managing its docket, the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiff had not communicated with the court during the four months the case had been pending, had received repeated warnings that noncompliance would result in dismissal, and had been given an opportunity to explain its failure to serve the defendant. The court also emphasized its obligation to resolve cases efficiently.

The court determined, however, that dismissal with prejudice would be too severe. The case was at an early stage, the defendant appeared not to have had substantive involvement, and the court had not decided substantive motions, held hearings, overseen discovery, or scheduled a trial. The court therefore concluded that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate sanction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged breach of contract occurred. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on March 4, 2025.