Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2025

Lopez, Samuel v. TRH Trading Corp.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-02423
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Lopez v. TRH Trading Corp., Judge Engelmayer dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act action for failure to prosecute after Lopez failed to follow court orders.

Who this affects

Samuel Lopez, whose Americans with Disabilities Act action was dismissed without prejudice; TRH Trading Corp. and Regina’s Grocery LLC, against whom the action was dismissed.

What happened

Samuel Lopez sued TRH Trading Corp. and Regina’s Grocery LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After the defendants did not respond, Lopez moved for default judgment, but later reported that the parties were discussing settlement.

The court ordered Lopez to provide updates about the settlement and his default-judgment motion. Lopez did not file the required update, and he also did not respond to a later order directing him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error because neither party objected. He adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez, Samuel v. TRH Trading Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-02423
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Jan. 14, 2025

Background

Samuel Lopez brought this action against TRH Trading Corp. and Regina’s Grocery LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear, so Lopez moved for default judgment.

The court later gave the defendants an opportunity to oppose that motion. Lopez requested a 10-day extension of the opposition deadline, stating that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions and that he preferred to resolve the matter through settlement. The court granted the request.

After hearing nothing further from Lopez, the court ordered him to file a status update addressing the settlement negotiations and explaining whether his default-judgment motion should be dismissed or held while settlement discussions continued. The court also directed him to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Lopez did not file the required status update. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn later ordered Lopez to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Lopez did not comply with that order either.

Report and Recommendation

Judge Netburn recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Neither party objected to the recommendation.

When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Engelmayer stated that his review found no such error and that the recommendation was thorough and well reasoned.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer adopted Judge Netburn’s recommendation in full and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, consistent with the warning in the recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.