UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FAIEZ YOUKHANNA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-11811 

v. HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

 

UNIVERSITY FOOD CENTER, INC., 

and NORMAN YALDOO, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

OPINION AND ORDER 

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, 

in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 7, 2015 

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter [dkt. 1]. On June 18, 2014, 

Defendants answered Plaintiff’s complaint [dkt. 7]. On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed 

a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff [dkt. 10]. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated 

there had been an “irreconcilable breakdown” in the attorney-client relationship, and thus 

requested leave from this Court to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff in this action. 

On August 12, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

[dkt. 11]. In its August 12, 2014, Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that he had 30 days from 

receipt of notice of the Order to either: a) prepare a Joint Case Summary with Defendants and 

file such Joint Case Summary with the Court or b) retain counsel in this matter. Plaintiff was 

further advised that “[f]ailure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.” Dkt. # 11, p. 1. On 

2:14-cv-11811-LPZ-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 01/07/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 51
2 

August 12, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a certificate of service with the Court, indicating 

Plaintiff had been served with the Court’s August 12, 2014, Order [dkt. 12]. 

On September 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [dkt. 13]. In their motion, 

Defendants assert that on or about June 27, 2014, Plaintiff pled guilty in Wayne County Circuit 

Court to embezzlement and organized retail fraud related to his employment with Defendants. 

Defendants further indicated that Plaintiff had failed to make contact with Defendants or 

Defendants’ counsel regarding this case, and that no attorney claiming to represent Plaintiff has 

contacted Defendants or Defendants’ counsel regarding this case. Defendants assert that, given 

Plaintiff’s continual failures to adhere to the orders of this Court or respond to Defendants’ 

filings, “it is clear Plaintiff abandoned his FLSA claims and the case is now ripe for dismissal 

with prejudice.” Dkt. # 13, p. 4. 

On October 29, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than November 

26, 2014, as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s 

August 12, 2014, Order to either: a) prepare a Joint Case Summary with Defendants and file such 

a Joint Case Summary with the Court or b) retain counsel in this matter (“Show Cause Order”) 

[dkt. 15]. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than November 26, 2014, as to 

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, i.e., failure to respond to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in 

the dismissal of this case with prejudice. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides: 

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply 

with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or 

2:14-cv-11811-LPZ-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 01/07/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 52
3 

any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under 

this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits. 

Further, Rule 41.2 of the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules indicates that: 

“when it appears . . . that the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, 

the court may, on its own motion after reasonable notice or on application of a 

party, enter an order dismissing or remanding the case unless good cause is 

shown. 

III. ANALYSIS 

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause 

Order. Further, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and has failed to 

comply with this Court’s August 12, 2014, Order requiring Plaintiff to either: a) prepare a Joint 

Case Summary with Defendants and file such a Joint Case Summary with the Court or b) retain 

counsel in this matter. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is in direct violation of this 

Court’s Orders and appears to no longer be prosecuting this case. Further, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has been given ample time to provide the Court with good cause as to why this case 

should not be dismissed, and has failed to do so. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint [dkt. 13] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. This Order does not close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Date: January 7, 2015 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2:14-cv-11811-LPZ-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 01/07/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 53