Opinion
20-cv-2925-JMY
08-18-2022
LAMONTE F. WILLIAMS v. PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC., and DAVID ZAVALA.
ORDER
JOHN MILTON YOUNGE JUDGE
AND NOW, this 18th day of August 2022, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED as follows:
1. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum filed by the Court, the Complaint is Dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
2. Williams is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint, and may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. When drafting his amended complaint, Williams should be mindful of the Court's reasons for dismissing the claims in his initial Complaint as explained in the Court's accompanying Memorandum.
3. If Williams does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand on his Complaint as originally pled, he may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims . . . following plaintiff's decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of those claims”).
4. If Williams fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Williams intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.
The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff's intention to stand on her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 Fed.Appx. 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 Fed.Appx. 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff's conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff's behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of the matter impossible.” (collecting cases)).
5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail copies of this Order to Lamonte F. Williams at the address appearing at the top of the docket and the address appearing at the top of the docket in Williams v. Piedmont Airlines, 20-cv-2925-JMY, as Lamonte F. Williams, 501 Cambria Avenue, Suite 363, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020.