Court Opinion

ID: 9394880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 16:01:34.478869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:03.893589
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                           No. 22-46
                                     (Filed: 16 May 2023)
                                   NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************
RESHAWN ARMSTRONG,                    *
                                      *
                  Plaintiff,          *
                                      *
v.                                    *
                                      *
THE UNITED STATES,                    *
                                      *
                  Defendant.          *
                                      *
***************************************

                                             ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

        On 16 December 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the government’s
Motion to Dismiss. See 16 Dec. 2022 Order, ECF No. 52. In the Court’s 16 December 2023
Order, the Court dismissed twenty-two of plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) counts
related to: (1) the law of the case doctrine; (2) accrual of annual or sick leave; (3) time and
attendance sheet reviews for accuracy; (4) incorrect start times; and (5) certain pay withholdings.
Id. at 12–13. The Court denied the government’s Motion to Dismiss as to two of plaintiff’s
FLSA counts related to overtime pay allegedly earned on 18 May 2017 and 21 May 2022. Id.
On 13 January 2023, the government filed its Answer on the remaining two overtime claims,
ECF No. 54. Pursuant to Rule 26 and paragraphs 4–6 of Appendix A of the Rules of the Court
of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), the parties were required to submit a joint preliminary status report
proposing a schedule for discovery and a case management plan on 3 March 2023.

         On 3 March 2023, the government filed a preliminary status report informing the Court
despite “numerous attempts to contact plaintiff, Ms. Reshawn Armstrong, she has not
responded.” Gov’t’s Preliminary Status Report at 1, ECF No. 56. The government requested
leave to serve discovery and proposed forgoing a discovery schedule as well as deferring RCFC
26 initial disclosures until the government could confer with plaintiff regarding discovery. Id. at
3–4. On 8 March 2023, the Court: (1) directed plaintiff to communicate with the government;
(2) stayed the case pending communication between the parties; and (3) ordered the parties to
file a joint status report updating the Court on the need for discovery. 8 Mar. 2023 Order, ECF
No. 57. On 8 May 2023, the government filed a status report informing the Court the parties had
been in contact, but plaintiff had not “provide[d] her positions on the preliminary status report
questions.” 8 May 2023 Status Report at 2, ECF No. 58. The government further indicated
plaintiff “intends to pursue all her FLSA claims[] and . . . desire[s] to begin discovery as soon as
possible.” Id. The government was unable to provide the Court with an estimated date of when
plaintiff would provide her positions on the preliminary joint status report. Id.

         “The case management procedures are intended to promote cooperation among counsel,
assist in the early identification of issues, minimize the cost and delay of litigation, and enhance
the potential for settlement.” RCFC Appendix A ⁋ 1. The Joint Preliminary Status Report, as
part of the case management procedure, is an essential tool the Court uses to effectively manage
the case when the parties work together, as they should in every case. The Court, again, notes
plaintiff is required to prosecute her case, including corresponding with the government’s
counsel regarding scheduling and other proceedings. If plaintiff is unwilling to correspond with
the government’s counsel, the Court will be forced to dismiss her case. See Whiting v. United
States, 99 Fed. Cl. 13, 17 (2011) (citing Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176–77
(Fed. Cir. 1986)) (“While dismissal of a claim is a harsh action, especially to a pro se litigant, it
is justified when a party fails to pursue litigation diligently and disregards the court’s
rules . . . .”). RCFC 41(b) provides “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with these rules
or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own motion or the defendant may move to dismiss
the action or any claim against it.”

        Pursuant to RCFC 16(b)(1), “[t]he court must issue a scheduling order: after receiving
the parties’ Joint Preliminary Status Report under Appendix A, paragraphs 4–6; or after
consulting with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference.”
The Court is to “issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable after the filing of the Joint
Preliminary Status Report, but in any event within 14 days after any preliminary scheduling
conference.” RCFC 16(b)(2).

        Accordingly, the government SHALL FILE a proposed schedule for proceedings
pursuant to Rule 16 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims on or before 30 May 2023.
Plaintiff SHALL FILE a response to the government’s proposed schedule on or before 13 June
2023. If plaintiff does not respond to the government’s proposed schedule, the Court will adopt
the government’s proposed schedule pursuant to RCFC 16 and in the interest of judicial
efficiency.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      s/ Ryan T. Holte
                                                      RYAN T. HOLTE
                                                      Judge

                                                -2-