Johnson v. Giles

Background

Bryan Nathaniel Johnson filed the action in March 2023 through counsel. The original complaint named Cameron Giles and Asylum Records LLC, Diplomatic Man, Inc., and Killa Cam Music. Johnson later voluntarily dismissed the case as to the three entities, leaving Giles as the remaining defendant.

Johnson’s amended complaint alleged that he created musical compositions for Giles, that Giles used them without crediting or paying him, and that the parties later reached a settlement agreement that Giles breached. Johnson also alleged that Giles infringed copyrights in newer compositions that Johnson provided after the earlier conduct.

Giles moved to dismiss some, but not all, of the amended claims. The court granted in part and denied in part that motion, and Giles answered the remaining claims. The parties then conducted discovery and received several extensions of their deadlines.

Failure to Prosecute

Johnson’s counsel later asked to withdraw, stating that Johnson had not paid legal bills for nearly one and one-half years and had not responded to counsel for approximately four months. The court allowed the withdrawal and ordered Johnson, by May 16, 2025, either to have new counsel enter an appearance or to notify the court and Giles that he would proceed without a lawyer.

Johnson did neither. The court issued two orders requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Both orders warned that dismissal could result from his failure to comply, and the second order called itself his “FINAL WARNING.” Giles sent Johnson copies of the orders as directed by the court. Johnson did not respond and took no other action to prosecute the case for more than seven months.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court considered the required factors: the length of Johnson’s inaction, his repeated notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to Giles from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Johnson’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.

The court concluded that all of those factors supported dismissal. Johnson had taken no action for more than seven months, ignored three court orders, received repeated warnings, and had been given multiple opportunities to continue the case. The court also found that further delay would likely prejudice Giles, who had already spent significant resources on motion practice and discovery. Because Johnson did not respond even to warnings of dismissal, the court found that a lesser sanction was unlikely to work.

Attorney’s Fees and Disposition

Giles requested dismissal with prejudice and an award of attorney’s fees. The court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The court denied the request for attorney’s fees because, after being ordered to provide legal authority and argument supporting that request, Giles did not do so. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.