Jordan v. City of New York

Background

Tamara Jordan sued the City of New York, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, and Asim Rehman in his official capacity as Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. Jordan alleged that the defendants discriminated against her because of a kidney condition and retaliated against her for requesting disability accommodations. Her amended complaint asserted claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

At an initial pretrial conference, the court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed Jordan’s claims except for her claim that the defendants retaliated against her for requesting accommodations in March 2020. The court referred the case to mediation and set deadlines for discovery and later filings.

Failure to Meet Court Deadlines

The scheduling order required discovery to be completed by June 28, 2024, and required a summary-judgment motion or joint pretrial order by July 19. After Jordan requested more time to complete discovery, the court extended the discovery deadline to August 30 and stated that there would be no further extension. The court later denied a request to extend the deadline for a summary-judgment motion and again required the parties to submit a joint pretrial order by September 23.

Neither a summary-judgment motion nor a joint pretrial order was filed by that date. On September 24, the court ordered Jordan to show cause by September 27 at noon why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Jordan did not respond and did not request more time.

Court’s Reasoning

Rule 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or orders. The court considered five factors: the length of the failure, whether the plaintiff received notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its docket compared with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction might work.

The court concluded that these factors favored dismissal. Jordan had notice that there would be no further extension, failed to submit the required filing, and ignored the order expressly warning that the case could be dismissed. Although the delay was not lengthy, the court found that unexplained noncompliance supported dismissal. The court also found little reason to believe that a lesser sanction, such as a monetary penalty, would be effective.

Disposition

The court dismissed Jordan’s complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The ruling ended the case based on Jordan’s failure to comply with deadlines and the court’s order; it did not decide whether the alleged retaliation occurred.