PIPELINE MEDICAL LLC v. PANAJOTI CONSULTING, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Pipeline Medical LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Panajoti Consulting, LLC,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Case No. 25-cv-10343
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On February 4, 2025, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey transferred this case to this Court. (ECF No. 3.)
On February 5, 2025, a text-only notice was entered in this case that
stated:
This case has been transferred from the District of New
Jersey. Pending motions must be refiled on this court’s docket
by the filing party. Attorneys not admitted to practice in this
court must complete the attorney admissions application and
be admitted before appearing on this court’s docket. All
previously filed documents can be accessed on the originating
court’s docket using PACER.
Case 5:25-cv-10343-JEL-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3

2
After the case was transferred and the text-only notice was entered,
no attorney filed an appearance, and no party submitted any motions or
filings. On October 2, 2025, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff
Pipeline Medical LLC to show cause in writing, by October 16, 2025, why
the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Eastern
District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2. (ECF No. 5.) The order warned that
“[f]ailure to respond may result in dismissal of the case.” (Id.)
The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s show cause order
elapsed over one month ago. The Court has not received any
communication from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed a written response
to the Court’s show cause order or asked for more time to respond. As a
result, Plaintiff does not that demonstrate that the case—which has been
pending in this Court for over nine months without the parties taking
any action—should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court
previously warned Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal if it failed
to respond to the Court’s show cause order. In light of Plaintiff’s non-
compliance with the Court’s order and its failure to prosecute the case,
and considering the current posture of the case, the Court finds it
appropriate to dismiss the case without prejudice. See E.D. Mich.
Case 5:25-cv-10343-JEL-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3

3
LR 41.2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Bay Corrugated Container, Inc. v. Gould,
Inc., 609 F. App’x 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 21, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:25-cv-10343-JEL-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3