Costello v. Paramount Global, Inc.

Background

A February 1, 2024, court order required Sue Costello to commence arbitration. The court later gave her several extensions and warned her five times that failing to begin arbitration could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with court orders.

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended dismissing the case with prejudice in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Costello, who was proceeding without a lawyer, timely submitted several letters that the court treated as objections. Paramount Global responded.

The Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and overruled Costello’s objections. It considered the factors used to decide whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was appropriate:

- Costello had not begun arbitration more than a year after the order requiring her to do so, despite multiple extensions. - She had received clear notice five times that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal. - Further delay would prejudice Paramount Global. - The court’s interest in managing its docket outweighed keeping the case open indefinitely. The court stated that Costello had already had an opportunity to challenge the arbitration requirement and that dismissal would not prevent her from pursuing arbitration. - A lesser sanction was not appropriate because Costello had not complied after being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal.

Costello argued that JAMS had refused to arbitrate because her claims involved alleged criminal conduct. The court rejected that argument, stating that her claims were not criminal in nature or otherwise non-arbitrable. The court also noted that the letters on the docket did not include the correspondence Costello said she had attached from JAMS.

The court addressed Costello’s argument that a case involving arbitration must be stayed rather than dismissed. It explained that the rule requiring a stay applies when arbitration is pending. Here, no arbitration had begun, and the separate reason for dismissal was Costello’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, overruled the objections, and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the case.