Admark Jewelry Corp v. UPS , 31 F. App'x 62 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2002 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    3-26-2002
    Admark Jewelry Corp v. UPS
    Precedential or Non-Precedential:
    Docket 01-2221
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
    Recommended Citation
    "Admark Jewelry Corp v. UPS" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 210.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/210
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2221
    ___________
    ADMARK JEWELRY CORPORATION,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
    _______________________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-02227
    (Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter)
    ___________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    March 7, 2002
    Before: SCIRICA and COWEN, Circuit Judges, and
    RESTANI, Judge, United States Court of International Trade*
    (Filed March 26, 2002)
    *The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade,
    sitting by designation.
    __________________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    __________________
    SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
    Admark Jewelry Corporation filed suit against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
    in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
    negligence and breach of contract for the loss or misdelivery by UPS of over 6,000
    packages of jewelry.   On the date of trial, Admark refused to prosecute the case. The
    District Court granted UPS’ motion to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
    I.
    We review an order of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for abuse of discretion.
    Marshall v. Sielaff, 
    492 F.2d 917
    , 918 (3d Cir. 1974). Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) provides that
    "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of
    court, a defendant may move for dismissal of any action or of any claim against him . . . .
    [A] dismissal under this subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits."
    We have stated
    the authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution, both on defendants’ motion
    and sua sponte, is an inherent . . . control necessarily vested in courts to
    manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
    disposition of cases . . . . No precise rule can be laid down as to what
    circumstances justify a dismissal for failure to prosecute, but the procedural
    history of each case must be examined in order to make that determination.
    The power of the court to prevent undue delays and to achieve the orderly
    disposition of cases must be weighed against the policy of law which
    favors disposition of litigation on its merits.
    Marshall, 
    492 F.2d at 918
     (citations and quotations omitted).
    II.
    After carefully considering the history of this litigation, it is clear the District
    Court did not abuse its discretion. This case was pending for almost two years before the
    District Court. During that time, Admark engaged in dilatory conduct. The District
    Court was forced to warn Admark to comply with pretrial discovery "or else risk the
    dismissal of [its] claims." On April 23, 2001, one week before trial, Admark’s president
    Phillip Kramer refused to proceed with his deposition unless Admark’s counsel was
    permitted to withdraw from the case. In a telephone conference with the parties, the
    District Judge repeatedly told Admark if he allowed its counsel to withdraw, the court
    would not grant a continuance of the trial date.
    Despite the District Court’s repeated admonitions that it would not grant a trial
    continuance, Admark filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance on April 27, 2001,
    which was denied the same day. Nonetheless, on April 30, 2001, the day the trial was
    scheduled to begin, Admark appeared in court, represented by new counsel, who
    informed the court he could not proceed unless a continuance were granted. The District
    Court denied this request and directed Admark to proceed with its case. When it refused
    to do so, the District Court granted UPS’ motion to dismiss the case for failure to
    prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We see no abuse of discretion.
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court dismissing the action for
    want of prosecution will be affirmed.
    TO THE CLERK:
    Please file the foregoing opinion.
    /s/ Anthony J. Scirica
    Circuit Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2221

Citation Numbers: 31 F. App'x 62

Filed Date: 3/26/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023