Ungaro v. Aaron
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Ungaro v. Aaron: Judge Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to serve defendants and follow court orders.
Christine Ungaro and Evelyn Mower, whose action was dismissed without prejudice, and the named defendants, because the case was closed without a merits ruling.
What happened
In Ungaro v. Aaron, Christine Ungaro and Evelyn Mower brought an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York law. The court scheduled an initial conference and required case materials, but plaintiffs did not file proof that defendants had been served or submit the required materials.
The court later ordered plaintiffs to explain their failure to serve defendants and warned that the action would be dismissed if they did not respond by July 31, 2024. Plaintiffs did not respond. More than 90 days had passed since the complaint was filed.
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ungaro v. Aaron · No. 1:24-cv-00339
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
Christine Ungaro and Evelyn Mower filed this action on January 16, 2024, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State law. The court issued an order scheduling an initial pretrial conference for July 26, 2024, and required the parties to file a joint letter, proposed case-management plan, and scheduling order by July 19, 2024.
Plaintiffs did not file the required letter or proof of service on the docket. On July 24, 2024, the court ordered plaintiffs to explain by July 31 why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The order warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs did not respond.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of a defendant within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service is not made within that period, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice after giving notice to the plaintiffs. The court found that more than 90 days had passed and that plaintiffs had not filed proof of service. Because plaintiffs had received notice and did not explain their failure to serve, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
The court also relied on Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders. The court considered the duration of plaintiffs’ noncompliance, their notice that dismissal could result, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and whether a less severe sanction would work. It found that plaintiffs had not complied with any of the court’s orders, including orders concerning service, pretrial materials, and the required explanation. The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate and that, because failure to serve was part of the basis for dismissal, the dismissal would be without prejudice.
Disposition
The action was dismissed, without prejudice, under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII or New York State law.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.