Date: 12-12-2020

Case Style:

Case Number: 3:17-cv-01084-VAB

Judge: Victor A. Bolden

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

New Haven Family Medical Leave Act Lawyer Directory

OR

Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.

Defendant's Attorney: Margaret M. Sheahan, Maria Eugenia Garcia Quintner, Robert Burdette Mitchell, Jessica Slippen

Description: New Haven, Connecticut - Employment law lawyer represented plaintiff, Donald Chapman, who sued Ring's End, Inc. on a Family & Medical Leave Act theory.

Outcome: 09/30/2020 61 ORDER DISMISSING CASE.
On June 23, 2020, the Court directed counsel for Mr. Chapman to submit evidence to move the case forward by September 25, 2020. See 60 Order. The Court noted that if this deadline was not met the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, no such evidence has been filed. As a result, consistent with Local Rule 41(a), where if "no action has been taken by the parties for six (6) months or in which deadlines established by the Court pursuant to Rule 16 appear not to have been met," D.Conn. L.Civ. R. 41(a), and "notice of proposed dismissal to counsel of record....has been given and no action has been taken in the meantime and no satisfactory explanation is submitted to the Court...the Clerk shall enter an order of dismissal." Id. The Court further exercises its "inherent discretion" to manage this case and dismiss it. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) ("[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases."). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/30/2020. (Tisdale, I.) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
09/30/2020 JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey
(Perez, J.) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
10/09/2020 62 MOTION for Reconsideration re 61 Order Dismissing Case,,,,, by Donald Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Reilly, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/12/2020 63 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.
Telephonic Status Conference set for November 5, 2020 at 11:00 A.M. before Judge Victor A. Bolden.
Dial: (888) 808-6929; Participant Code: 9284309; Bypass the prompt for a security code. (Tisdale, I.) (Entered: 10/12/2020)
11/05/2020 64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Victor A. Bolden: Telephonic Status Conference held on November 5, 2020. Total Time: 23 minutes (Court Reporter S. Montini) (Tisdale, I.) (Entered: 11/05/2020)
11/05/2020 65 ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration. The motion to reconsider is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. As discussed during the telephonic status conference held on November 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., at this time, based on the filings and arguments presented by Plaintiffs counsel, there is not a sufficient basis for reconsidering the Courts September 30, 2020 Order dismissing this case. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) ("The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked--matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court"). Indeed, even if as represented by Plaintiffs counsel that no further action was required by Plaintiff to prevent this cases dismissal, Plaintiffs counsel had no explanation for the absence of any activity whatsoever in the case since June 23, 2020. Nevertheless, a critical issue in this case continues to be Plaintiffs competence and capacity to proceed with this case without the appointment of a guardian ad litem or some other legal representative. As a result, the denial of this motion to reconsider is without prejudice and the motion may be renewed by December 11, 2020, to the extent that there is a sufficient legal basis for Mr. Chapman being deemed competent and capable to proceed with this case, and for any allegedly remaining claims having merit. Failure to renew the motion to reconsider by December 11, 2020 may result in this motion being denied with prejudice.

Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 11/5/2020. (Tisdale, I.) (Entered: 11/05/2020)
12/01/2020 66 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Telephone Conference. Held on 11/5/20 before Judge Victor Bolden. Court Reporter: Sharon Montini. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 12/22/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/1/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/1/2021. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/11/2020 67 Second MOTION for Reconsideration re 61 Order Dismissing Case,,,,, by Donald Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A)(Reilly, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: