Saunders v. Royal Leaf Club Dispensary Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-06208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Saunders v. Royal Leaf Club Dispensary Corp.: Judge Furman dismissed Saunders’s case without prejudice after repeated failures to follow court orders.
Michael Saunders’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state any additional effect on the defendant.
What happened
In Saunders v. Royal Leaf Club Dispensary Corp., Michael Saunders brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court had ordered him to take steps toward seeking a default judgment and later to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Saunders missed several deadlines, including an extended deadline, and did not respond to the court’s latest order to explain his failures. The court found that he had not prosecuted the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Saunders v. Royal Leaf Club Dispensary Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-06208
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Michael Saunders brought this case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Netburn.
On November 25, 2024, the court ordered Saunders to seek a certificate of default and file a motion for default judgment by December 3, 2024. After Saunders did not comply, the court ordered him to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted Saunders an extension, but he did not meet the new January 16, 2025 deadline. The court then ordered him to file a letter by January 24, 2025, which he also did not file.
On January 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Netburn ordered Saunders to explain by February 3, 2025, why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Saunders did not respond.
Ruling
The court explained that federal courts have authority to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The court found that Saunders had repeatedly failed to comply with its orders and that dismissal was warranted. It determined, however, that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice.
Accordingly, Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.