Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2024

Danso v. Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-04693
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Danso v. Perfume Outlet, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice because Danso failed to prosecute it.

Who this affects

Charity Danso and the people she sought to represent, as well as Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC.

What happened

In Danso v. Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC, Charity Danso filed a complaint on June 20, 2024, but the record did not show that she served the defendant with the summons and complaint within the required time.

A magistrate judge later ordered Danso to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward. Danso did not respond or take other action to make progress in the case.

Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Danso v. Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-04693
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Nov. 20, 2024

Background

Charity Danso filed the complaint on June 20, 2024. An electronic summons was issued for Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC the next day. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a defendant to be served with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court stated that the docket contained no indication that Danso had served Perfume Outlet.

Order to Show Cause

On October 3, 2024, Magistrate Judge Gary Stein issued an order requiring Danso to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The opinion states that Danso did not take the required step or otherwise take action to make progress in the case after that order.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case, without prejudice, under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. A dismissal without prejudice is the wording used by the court and does not state that the dismissal bars refiling. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.