Fernandez v. STMM, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-06338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Fernandez v. STMM was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after missed deadlines, Judge Subramanian ruled.
Felipe Fernandez’s accessibility claim against STMM, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice because Fernandez failed to prosecute the case; the court did not decide the claim’s merits.
What happened
In Fernandez v. STMM, Inc., Felipe Fernandez, who is visually impaired and legally blind, claimed that STMM’s website was not accessible to blind people. Fernandez was represented by a lawyer, while STMM did not appear.
Fernandez obtained a certificate of default but did not file the required motion for default judgment. He missed three deadlines, despite repeated warnings that the case could be dismissed if he did not act.
The court dismissed Fernandez’s claim without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Arun Subramanian did not decide whether STMM’s website violated any accessibility requirement.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. STMM, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06338
- Subramanian
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Felipe Fernandez, who is visually impaired and legally blind, alleged that STMM, Inc.’s website was not accessible to blind people. Fernandez was represented by counsel. STMM did not appear in the case.
Procedural History
Fernandez filed the case on August 22, 2024. He later sought and received a certificate of default against STMM. The court then directed him to file a motion for default judgment within two weeks and warned that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Fernandez missed that deadline. The court extended the deadline to October 26, 2024, with the same warning, but he missed that deadline as well. On December 4, 2024, the court granted a third and final extension through January 10, 2025. Fernandez did not file a motion for default judgment by that deadline and took no action to prosecute the case after October 7, 2024.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss a case on its own initiative when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court considered the length of Fernandez’s delays, the repeated warnings, possible prejudice from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and preserving an opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions might work.
The court found that these factors favored dismissal. Fernandez repeatedly ignored the court’s orders without explanation, did not respond to the court’s repeated directives over approximately six months, and gave no indication that he intended to continue prosecuting the case. The court also found no reason to believe that lesser sanctions would end his silence.
Disposition
The court dismissed Fernandez’s claim without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion did not decide the merits of Fernandez’s accessibility claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.