Abdallah v. Rago, N15C-03-043 JAP

Collision on Nov. 28, 2013: New Castle County police vehicle (lights/siren active) struck Abdallah’s car while he had the green light; Abdallah alleged serious injuries preventing work/driving.
Abdallah sued on March 6, 2015; defendants deposed him Oct. 2015 and obtained surveillance showing him driving commercial vehicles contrary to his testimony.
Parties reached a mediation settlement in principle, but Abdallah later refused to sign; defense moved to enforce settlement; plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw and was permitted to withdraw; Abdallah proceeded pro se.
After proceeding pro se Abdallah repeatedly missed court-ordered dates (status conference, pretrial conference), failed to produce tax returns and expert reports despite multiple warnings and extensions, and missed several hearings.
Court imposed limited sanctions (payment of $200) and gave firm deadlines for tax returns (June 30) and expert reports (July 30); Abdallah missed the expert deadline and gave unsatisfactory explanations at a September hearing.
Court concluded delays were solely Abdallah’s fault, lesser sanctions would not cure prejudice to defendants or docket management, and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate given missed deadlines and noncompliance	Abdallah argued he lacked notice of some deadlines and that failures were not willful	Defendants argued Abdallah repeatedly ignored orders, missed deadlines, failed to produce discovery (tax returns, expert reports), prejudicing their ability to prepare for trial	Court held dismissal warranted: repeated dilatoriness, willful/nonexcusible conduct, prejudice to defendants, and no lesser sanction adequate
Whether lesser sanctions (instead of dismissal) could cure prejudice and avoid dismissal	Abdallah sought continuances/excuses; contended lack of receipt of notices	Defendants argued prior leniency had failed and only dismissal would prevent further prejudice and permit docket management	Court held lesser sanctions ineffective given history; dismissal was last-resort but justified after multiple chances and warnings

Gebhart v. Ernest DiSabatino & Sons, Inc., 264 A.2d 157 (Del. 1970) (recognizes inherent power of court to manage its docket and dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Servs., P.A., 913 A.2d 519 (Del. 2006) (trial courts have discretion to control docket and scheduling)
Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Service, Inc., 15 A.3d 1221 (Del. 2010) (sets factors to consider before imposing dismissal as sanction)
Christian v. Counseling Resource Assoc., Inc., 60 A.3d 1083 (Del. 2013) (addresses limits on dismissal and preference for lesser sanctions where prejudice is curable)
Hoag v. Amex Assurance Co., 953 A.2d 713 (Del. 2008) (dismissal is a severe sanction courts apply as a last resort)
Adams v. Aidoo, 58 A.3d 410 (Del. 2013) (confirms dismissal power applies to pro se litigants and examines willfulness and dilatoriness factors)