Wahab v. Min New York, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-03779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wahab v. Min New York, Inc., Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it or obey court orders.
Angela Wahab’s case against Min New York, Inc. was dismissed with prejudice, ending the action and directing the Clerk of Court to close it.
What happened
Angela Wahab sued Min New York, Inc. on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The defendant was served but did not appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint.
The court issued four orders requiring Wahab to explain why the case should not be dismissed. Although the clerk issued a certificate of default after Wahab requested one, she did not move for a default judgment, respond on time to the court’s orders, or take further action to move the case forward.
The court found that the required factors supported dismissal, including the length of the delay, the repeated warnings, prejudice to the defendant, the burden on the court, and the likely ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The detailed version
- Wahab v. Min New York, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03779
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
Angela Wahab filed a complaint against Min New York, Inc. on May 16, 2024, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. A summons was returned showing that the defendant had been served. The defendant’s answer was due July 19, 2024, but the defendant had not appeared, answered, or otherwise responded by the time of the order.
Failure to Prosecute
The court issued four orders to show cause—orders requiring the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed—on October 10, October 31, November 26, and December 6, 2024. The orders warned that the case could be dismissed because of counsel’s failure to prosecute it and that failure to comply with the orders could result in dismissal.
After two attempted filings were found deficient, Wahab filed a proposed certificate of default and supporting affirmation. The Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default. Wahab did not move for a default judgment or timely respond to the October 31 order. She also failed to respond to the November 26 and December 6 orders or take further action to prosecute the case.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court orders. The court considered the five factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: the duration of the failure; notice that dismissal could result; likely prejudice to the defendant; the balance between docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard; and whether a less severe sanction could work.
The court found that the case had been pending for nearly a year and that Wahab had taken no action beyond serving the defendant and requesting a clerk’s certificate of default. The court also found that Wahab had ignored at least two orders over approximately five months and had received clear, repeated warnings about possible dismissal. It concluded that continued delay would prejudice the defendant and burden the court, and that lesser sanctions, including fines on counsel, would be ineffective because communications with the court had stopped.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil concluded that dismissal for failure to prosecute was appropriate. The case was DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.