Anderson v. Experian

Background

Kaia Anderson brought this federal case against Experian and represented herself without a lawyer. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general pretrial supervision and was assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference by telephone for June 2, 2020, then moved it to June 16 at Experian’s request so the parties could discuss a possible case-management plan.

Anderson did not appear for the June 16 conference. Experian’s lawyer told the court that Anderson had not responded to mailed correspondence and could not be reached at the telephone number she had provided. The court then scheduled another conference for July 16 and warned Anderson that she needed to keep the court informed of her current contact information and appear at court conferences. The court further warned that another failure could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Anderson did not provide updated contact information and did not appear for the July 16 conference. The court received no request from her to reschedule and no explanation for either absence. Experian’s lawyer again reported having no communication with Anderson.

Show-cause order and recommendation

On July 21, 2020, Judge Freeman issued an order requiring Anderson to explain in writing by August 21 why the court should not recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order recognized that Anderson was proceeding without a lawyer and that the COVID-19 pandemic had made some activities more difficult. It nevertheless stated that the court could not meaningfully supervise the case while Anderson failed to appear and could not be contacted. The court also found that Experian was prejudiced because its lawyer could not contact Anderson to plan discovery.

The order explained that dismissal for failure to prosecute is available under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court considered the length of Anderson’s noncompliance, the warnings she received, possible prejudice to Experian, the court’s need to manage its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective. It gave Anderson another opportunity to explain her absences and update her contact information.

Anderson filed no response by the August 21 deadline. On September 14, 2020, Judge Freeman issued this report and recommendation, stating that Anderson had not responded even after more than two weeks had passed since the deadline.

Disposition

Judge Freeman recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and that the case be closed on the docket. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation did not bar Anderson from bringing her claims again, although the earlier filing would not stop the applicable filing deadline from continuing to run. The document is a report and recommendation rather than a final disposition by Judge Carter. Anderson was given 14 days after service to file written objections directed to Judge Carter; the report stated that failing to object within that period would waive objections and prevent appellate review.

The opinion does not state whether Judge Carter later adopted the recommendation.