Guldan v. DeJoy
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-03695
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Guldan v. DeJoy, Judge Magnuson canceled the hearing, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Dennis Guldan’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Louis DeJoy’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot, and the hearing on that motion was canceled.
What happened
In Guldan v. DeJoy, Louis DeJoy filed a motion to dismiss Dennis Guldan’s complaint. Guldan did not file a written response by the deadline or ask for more time.
The court canceled the hearing scheduled for December 19, 2024. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Guldan failed to prosecute the case, meaning he did not take a required step to move it forward.
Judge Magnuson denied DeJoy’s motion to dismiss as moot because the complaint was dismissed on another ground. The court entered judgment accordingly.
The detailed version
- Guldan v. DeJoy · No. 0:24-cv-03695
- Paul Magnuson
- Nov. 27, 2024
Background
Defendant Louis DeJoy filed a motion to dismiss on October 21, 2024. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, Plaintiff Dennis Guldan’s response was due within 21 days. Because the twenty-first day fell on Veterans Day, a legal holiday, the deadline extended to November 12, 2024.
Guldan filed neither a memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss nor a request for additional time. The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with procedural requirements.
Ruling
The court canceled the hearing scheduled for December 19, 2024. It dismissed Guldan’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the opinion did not state that the complaint could not be filed again.
The court also denied DeJoy’s motion to dismiss as moot. The motion was moot because the complaint was dismissed for Guldan’s failure to prosecute rather than through a ruling on the motion’s arguments. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.