Gilbert C. Pilet, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-14402-CIV-MAYNARD1
GILBERT C. PILET, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before me upon a sua sponte review of the record. 	Plaintiff has
not timely complied with my prior Orders requiring it to secure counsel and file an amended
complaint. 	I 	therefore 	recommend 	that 	this 	case 	be 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Court Orders.
As background, on November 6, 2025, Defendant initiated this case by filing a
Notice of Removal (“Notice”). DE 1. This Notice attached a state court complaint filed by
Plaintiff, a limited liability company, generally alleging that Defendant unlawfully and
wrongfully 	closed 	Plaintiff’s 	business 	checking 	account, 	causing 	irreparable 	harm,
operational collapse and the loss of major business opportunities. DE 1-1. The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff “is a business entity based in Port St. Lucie, Florida” and asserts several
1 This non-prisoner pro se civil case was assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant
to Administrative Order 2025-11. See Administrative Order 2025-11 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2025), available at:
https://www.flsd.uscourts. gov/sites/flsd/files/adminorders/2025-11.pdf. Based on the circumstances of this
particular case, I am issuing a Report and Recommendation and will be simultaneously issuing a separate order
directing the Clerk to randomly reassign this case to a United States District Judge of this Court.
Case 2:25-cv-14402-DSL Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 1 of 5

2 of 5
counts, including one for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Id. at 2-3. As relief,
Plaintiff seeks $36 million in compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
Id. at 3.
On November 14, 2025, I issued an Order partially granting Defendant’s motion to
strike the pro se complaint because, as a limited liability company, Plaintiff is not legally
permitted to appear pro se or through its officers in federal court. 	DE 10 at 2 (collecting
authorities). Thus, the complaint was dismissed as a legal nullity. Id. My order indicated
that if Plaintiff intends to pursue this case, then it must secure counsel and file an amended
complaint by December 1, 2025. Id. I expressly cautioned that failure to comply with this
Order may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Id. at 3 (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Id. Plaintiff did not timely act in response to this Order.
Recognizing Plaintiff’s pro se status, on December 30, 2025, I sua sponte granted an
extension of time for Plaintiff to comply with my directives to secure counsel and file an
amended complaint. 	DE 12. 	This second order gave Plaintiff until January 13, 2026, to
comply. Id. I again cautioned that “failure to timely comply with this Order’s directives
will likely result in a recommended final dismissal of this case without further notice
for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b).” Id. (emphasis in original). Nothing was filed by this new deadline.
Case 2:25-cv-14402-DSL Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 2 of 5

3 of 5
Plaintiff has neither secured counsel nor filed an amended complaint as required.2
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply
with . . . a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
see also McKelvey v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 789 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that
the “decision to dismiss for want of prosecution lies within the trial court’s discretion”). The
Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a case for lack
of prosecution based on its own “inherent power to manage its docket.” Betty K. Agencies,
Ltd. V. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).
Dismissal with prejudice “is a sanction of last resort that is to be utilized only in
extreme situations” and it “can be imposed only in the face of a clear record of delay or
contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” 	Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut.
Prot. And Indem. Ass’n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Betty
K., 432 F.3d at 1337–38 (holding that dismissal with prejudice may be imposed only when
a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt and the district court
specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice). In contrast, a dismissal without
prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits and, therefore, courts are afforded greater
discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. See Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, 433 F.
App’x 716, 719 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of complaint without prejudice for
failure to prosecute).
2 On February 2, 2026, Mr. Pilet filed a pro se handwritten request for a settlement conference. DE 14.
However, this filing does not constitute timely or proper compliance with the Court’s orders directing the
Plaintiff LLC to retain counsel and file an amended complaint. As previously explained, Plaintiff may not
proceed pro se on behalf of the LLC. Therefore, the request was stricken as a legal nullity and improper. DE
15. This improper filing does not alter my analysis or recommendations herein.
Case 2:25-cv-14402-DSL Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 3 of 5

4 of 5
Nearly three months have passed since Plaintiff filed its complaint. A series of prior
Court Orders have provided clear guidance and ample opportunity for Plaintiff to secure
counsel and file an amended pleading. 	Plaintiff has twice been given fair warning that a
failure to respond and timely pursue this case might lead to the case being dismissed without
further notice. 	It appears that Plaintiff does not intend to comply with Court orders.
However, because there is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, dismissal
without prejudice is the appropriate course. See, e.g., Riddell v. Florida, 702 F. App’x 869,
871–72 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for want of prosecution after
plaintiff failed to respond to an order directing him to show cause why the case should not
be dismissed following his failure to respond to a motion to dismiss). This dismissal would
not act as an adjudication on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that dismissal
for failure to prosecute, or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules or a court order,
operates as an adjudication on the merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise”).
RECOMMENDATION
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	I 	respectfully 	RECOMMEND 	that 	this 	case 	be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Court Orders.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy
of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the
U.S. District Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); S.D. Fla. Mag. J.R. 4(a). Failure to file
objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the U.S. District
Judge of an issue covered in the Report and Recommendation and shall bar the parties from
Case 2:25-cv-14402-DSL Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 4 of 5

5 of 5
attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and
Recommendation. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016). Conversely,
if a party does not intend to object to this Report and Recommendation, then that party
shall file a Notice of such within five (5) days of the date of this Report and
Recommendation.
The Clerk is directed to MAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed
below and enter a Notice of Compliance confirming same.
DONE AND RECOMMENDED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 4th day
of February, 2026.
__________________________________
SHANIEK MILLS MAYNARD
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copy via U.S. Mail:
Gilbert C. Pilet, LLC
2120 SW Plantation Terrace
Port St. Lucie, FL 34953
Case 2:25-cv-14402-DSL Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2026 Page 5 of 5