Rizvi v. Bolden
9:21-cv-80086
S.D. Fla.Jun 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Nusrat and Eileen Rizvi (pro se) filed suit on January 15, 2021, against thirteen out-of-state defendants alleging due-process harms arising from Connecticut litigation and related insurance and real-estate disputes.
- Plaintiffs failed to perfect service on multiple defendants; the Court previously dismissed claims against Mario D. Cometti and The Allstate Corporation without prejudice for defective service.
- Several defendants (including Hinckley Allen and Urstadt Biddle) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; others moved to quash service.
- The Court mailed an Order to Show Cause on May 13, 2021, directing Plaintiffs to explain why pending motions should not be granted and warning that failure to respond could lead to dismissal under Local Rule 7.1(c) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Plaintiffs did not respond by the May 21 deadline.
- On May 27, 2021, Judge Victor A. Bolden was dismissed without prejudice for failure to perfect service; based on prolonged inactivity and noncompliance with court orders, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to prosecute / Rule 41(b) | No timely filings or responses; Plaintiffs offered no opposition | Defendants sought dismissal or to treat motions as unopposed under Local Rule 7.1(c) | Magistrate recommends dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with orders |
| Service of process / sufficiency | Plaintiffs did not perfect service and offered no justification | Some defendants moved to dismiss/quash based on defective service | Court previously dismissed Cometti and Allstate without prejudice; Judge Bolden later dismissed for lack of service |
| Personal jurisdiction challenges | Plaintiffs did not respond to jurisdictional motions | Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction | Court warned unopposed motions could be granted by default; recommendations render motions potentially moot if case dismissed |
| Sanctions for noncompliance with orders | No response to Order to Show Cause or other court directives | Defendants relied on rules and precedent to request dismissal or enforcement | Court applied Eleventh Circuit standards and concluded lesser sanctions inadequate given prolonged delay; recommended dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing And Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2009) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, [citation="205 F. App'x 802"] (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing inherent authority to enforce orders and dismiss)
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (plaintiff's failure to prosecute can justify dismissal)
- Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (dismissing with prejudice requires clear record of delay and inadequacy of lesser sanctions)
- Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 429 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (pro se litigants are subject to the same sanctioning standards as represented parties)