Dhaliwal v. Mallinckrodt PLC

Background

Dhaliwal, who was proceeding without a lawyer, initiated the action on April 10, 2018. After the defendants moved to compel arbitration, Judge Broderick granted that motion on September 29, 2019, and stayed—paused—the federal case while arbitration was completed.

Dhaliwal filed several status updates and letters stating that she had not begun arbitration. She said she was engaged in protected activity involving information provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies concerning the defendants. She later said that repeated alleged retaliation by the defendants made her extremely uncomfortable proceeding with arbitration and that she wanted to continue in federal court.

At a June 11, 2020 telephone conference, the court told Dhaliwal that her submissions did not appear to justify further delay and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if she did not justify the delay. On July 27, 2020, the court ordered the parties to formally begin arbitration by August 28, 2020, and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Dhaliwal instead filed a letter arguing that dismissal would be inappropriate. The court found that she did not request an extension or show an intent to proceed with arbitration.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. The court applied five factors: the length of the failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendants from further delay, the balance between court docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be adequate.

The court noted that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. It also stated that dismissal of a complaint brought by a person without a lawyer for failure to prosecute is appropriate only in sufficiently extreme circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Dhaliwal had abandoned her pursuit of arbitration and had failed to comply with the court’s orders without justification. It emphasized that nearly a year had passed since the order compelling arbitration, that Dhaliwal had neither begun arbitration nor shown an intent to begin it, and that she had been expressly warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.

The court also found that the defendants were prejudiced by the unreasonable delay and by the continued pendency of litigation that was unlikely to be resolved because Dhaliwal refused to pursue arbitration. The court determined that Dhaliwal had received a full and fair opportunity to be heard and that additional explanations from the court would not justify further delay. It further concluded that lesser sanctions, including monetary sanctions, would not be sufficient to compel arbitration.

Disposition

The action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order to Dhaliwal and close the case. The court stated that the dismissal should not be understood to prevent Dhaliwal from pursuing arbitration if she attempted to begin it.