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.

Harlem Carpet & Tile Mart v. Mohawk Carpet Distribution

November 16, 2011

HARLEM CARPET & TILE MART
v.
MOHAWK CARPET DISTRIBUTION



Name of Assigned Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE

TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute [21] without prejudice. The Court orders Plaintiff to remedy all outstanding discovery deficiencies by no later than 11/21/11 and to advise the Court by 11/22/11 that it has complied with this Order. Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions, including possible dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Status hearing set for 1/5/12 is stricken and reset to 11/28/11 at 8:30 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41(b) and request for attorney's fees. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion without prejudice and orders Plaintiff to serve all outstanding written discovery on Defendants by November 21, 2011.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Harlem Carpet & Tile Mart, Inc. ("Harlem") filed its Complaint against Defendants Mohawk Carpet Distribution, Inc. and Mohawk Carpet Transportation of Georgia, LLC (collectively, "Mohawk") in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on December 23, 2010, alleging claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. (R. 1.) Harlem also seeks an accounting. (Id.) On February 4, 2011, Mohawk removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) Mohawk filed its answer on February 25, 2011. (R. 10.) Subsequently, Mohawk obtained leave from the Court to file an amended answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim, and it filed such documents on April 20, 2011. (R. 15.)

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

On March 21, 2011, Mohawk served Harlem with its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, pursuant to the Court's March 14, 2011 scheduling order. (R. 12; R. 22-1 at Exs. A and B.) On the same date, Mohawk noticed the deposition of Harlem's owner, Ralph S. Meranda, for April 29, 2011. (R. 22-1 at Ex. C.)

On April 15, 2011, the parties agreed to a reciprocal two-week extension to provide Rule 26(a) disclosures and discovery responses, such that they would be due on May 2 and May 4, 2011, respectively. (Id. at Ex. D.) Due to the extension, Mohawk postponed Mr. Meranda's deposition. (R. 22 at 2.) On May 4 and May 5, 2011, the parties agreed to another reciprocal extension of discovery deadlines, making both parties' discovery responses and Rule 26(a) disclosures due on May 16 and May 18, 2011, respectively. (R. 22-1 at Ex. E.)

The parties attended a status hearing before the Court on May 23, 2011, at which time the Court ordered that the parties exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by May 31, 2011. (R. 16.) Mohawk timely served its disclosures and discovery responses, but Harlem did not produce either by May 31, 2011. (R. 22 at 2.) On June 8, 2011, Mohawk's counsel sent Harlem's counsel, Bill Flotow, an email reminding him of his obligation to produce outstanding discovery. (R. 22-1 at Ex. F.) Harlem did not respond to Mohawk's counsel's email. (R. 22 at 2.) On June 13, 2011 and on June 23, 2011, Mohawk's counsel again sent emails to Harlem's counsel regarding Harlem's failure to comply with its ...


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.