In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Murphy v. The Laundress, LLC: Judge Furman dismissed Murphy’s remaining claims without prejudice because she did not prosecute them.
Margaret Murphy’s remaining individual claims were dismissed without prejudice, and she was terminated as a plaintiff. The remaining plaintiffs were told that they did not need to amend the consolidated complaint to remove references to Murphy unless the parties disagreed.
What happened
In In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation, the court had previously dismissed Margaret Murphy’s class claims and directed her to notify the court by April 18, 2025, whether she intended to pursue her individual claims.
Murphy did not file the required letter. The court therefore found that she did not intend to proceed with her individual claims and concluded that dismissal was warranted.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed Murphy’s remaining claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute, terminated her as a plaintiff, and directed the clerk to mail her the order. The court also said the other plaintiffs did not need to file an amended complaint removing references to Murphy unless the parties disagreed.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
On March 20, 2025, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Margaret Murphy’s class claims. The court ordered Murphy to file a letter by April 18, 2025, stating whether she intended to pursue her individual claims. The opinion states that no letter had been filed by April 25.
Reasoning
The court explained that federal courts may dismiss a plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute, meaning the plaintiff has not taken required steps to move the case forward. The court determined that Murphy’s failure to indicate an intention to proceed with her individual claims justified dismissal. It found that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice.
Ruling
The court ordered that Murphy’s remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the clerk to terminate Murphy as a plaintiff and mail her a copy of the order. The court added that, despite its earlier reference to the issue, the remaining plaintiffs did not need to file an amended consolidated class action complaint removing references to Murphy. If the parties disagreed, they were directed to confer, and the plaintiffs were given leave to file such an amended complaint by May 9, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.