Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:21-cv-02824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC, Judge Woods dismissed Ulises Rodriguez’s claims without prejudice after repeated failures to prosecute.
Ulises Rodriguez’s claims against the defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the claims of the other plaintiffs were dismissed.
What happened
In Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC, Ulises Rodriguez stopped communicating with his lawyer, did not appear for a required deposition, and missed three court conferences despite personal orders to attend. His lawyer withdrew, and no new lawyer entered an appearance for him.
The court found that Rodriguez was taking no steps to pursue his claims and had received clear notice that his claims could be dismissed. It dismissed his claims against the defendants without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Judge Woods issued the order on October 3, 2024. The ruling affected only Rodriguez’s claims; the opinion did not dismiss the other plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02824
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 3, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 20, 2021. The court later extended the fact-discovery deadline for the sole purpose of taking plaintiff Ulises Rodriguez’s deposition. Rodriguez did not appear for the deposition, and his lawyer moved to withdraw because Rodriguez repeatedly failed to respond to attempts to contact him.
The court then personally ordered Rodriguez to attend three conferences: one concerning his lawyer’s withdrawal and two concerning whether he intended to continue pursuing the case. Rodriguez did not attend any of the three conferences. The court, court staff, the other plaintiffs’ counsel, and defendants’ counsel appeared at each conference. After his lawyer withdrew, no notice of appearance was filed on Rodriguez’s behalf.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, treating that failure as a failure to prosecute. The court considered the duration of Rodriguez’s failures, his notice that continued delay could result in dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its docket while protecting due process, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
Ruling
The court concluded that dismissal was warranted. Rodriguez had failed to comply with several court orders, had not appeared for his deposition or three required conferences, and had remained out of communication with his lawyer and the court for more than two months. The court found that he had given no indication that he intended to prosecute the action, had received clear notice of the possible dismissal, and could not be effectively sanctioned by a lesser measure.
Accordingly, Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed Rodriguez’s claims against the defendants without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Rodriguez a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.