Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC
- Rearden
- 1:20-cv-03546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC, Judge Rearden dismissed the overtime case without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to prosecute it.
The dismissal ended the plaintiffs’ case against the defendants without prejudice; the court did not reach the merits of the overtime claims.
What happened
Beatriz Corona Cortes and the other plaintiffs sued Corned Beef Express, LLC and other defendants, alleging denial of overtime compensation. The defendants did not respond or appear after being served, and the plaintiffs obtained certificates of default.
The plaintiffs sought default judgments, but the court denied the first request because service was improper. After a later request, the court found that the plaintiffs’ submissions did not establish that the defendants were legally liable and directed them to file a corrected motion by April 10, 2024.
The plaintiffs filed nothing else for more than a year. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03546
- Rearden
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed a complaint on May 6, 2020, alleging denial of overtime compensation. The opinion states that the defendants were served on July 8, August 3, and November 19, 2020. Their responses were therefore due on July 29, August 24, and December 12, 2020, respectively. None of the defendants responded to the complaint or otherwise appeared.
The plaintiffs obtained certificates of default but did not promptly move for default judgment or take other action to prosecute the case. In June 2021, the court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), why their counsel should not be sanctioned, and whether they had been informed that their own conduct could lead to dismissal with prejudice.
Default-judgment proceedings
The plaintiffs responded and sought a default judgment. After a hearing, the court denied that motion because service was improper and warned that failing to take the steps necessary to move the case toward resolution could result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
After the case was reassigned to Judge Rearden in January 2023, the court allowed the plaintiffs to renew their default-judgment motion. The plaintiffs filed another motion after receiving an extension. The court determined that their submissions did not establish that the defendants were liable as a matter of law. The court directed the plaintiffs to file a corrected default-judgment motion by April 10, 2024, and warned that failure to submit a timely and proper motion might result in dismissal without prejudice. The plaintiffs served that order on the defendants on March 28, 2024, but filed nothing further for more than a year.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to overtime compensation or whether the defendants were liable on the underlying claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.