Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rhodes v. Credit Protection Association

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

February 2, 2017

RAYON RHODES, Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court sua sponte and upon Defendant Credit Protection Association's Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. # 39), filed on December 19, 2016. Plaintiff Rayon Rhodes has not complied with the Court's December 20, 2016, Order (Doc. # 44), nor has Rhodes responded to Defendant's Motion. For the reasons below, this action is dismissed with prejudice.

         Discussion

         The Court has previously recounted Rhodes's history of noncompliance with the orders of this Court. (Doc. ## 21, 38, 44). As such, the Court provides a mere summary for purposes of this Order.

         Prior to the commencement of the instant action, Rhodes filed an identical lawsuit against Defendant Credit Protection Association. Rhodes v. Credit Prot. Ass'n, No. 8:15-cv-2184-T-33TBM. That action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. at (Doc. # 14) (order dated October 28, 2015, dismissing case).

         About two months later, Rhodes, rather than moving to reopen the earlier-filed action, instituted this action against Defendant, which was transferred to the undersigned from the Honorable James D. Whittemore, United States District Judge. (Doc. ## 1, 11). The continual noncompliance that plagued the first-filed action also thwarted the Court's attempts to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action. To be sure, Rhodes:

(1) failed to timely file a notice of mediation as required by the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. # 15);
(2) failed to file a notice of mediation within the extension of time granted sua sponte by the Court (Doc. # 16);
(3) failed to respond to the Court's August 25, 2016, Order to show cause (Doc. # 18);
(4) failed to file a notice of mediation after the case was reopened (Doc. # 24);
(5) failed to appear for Court-ordered mediation as required under the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. # 38);
(6) submitted a questionable explanation as to why he did not appear in person for mediation (Doc. ## 40, 44);
(7) failed to provide the supplemental information as ordered, even after being granted an extension of time to do ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.