Gannon v. Hun Shing Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-01681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Gannon v. Hun Shing, Judge Abrams dismissed Gannon’s claims against Hun Shing and H Optics’ cross-claim without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Stephen Gannon’s claims against Hun Shing Corp. and H Optics Optometry, P.C.’s cross-claim against Hun Shing were dismissed without prejudice; Hun Shing’s cross-claim against H Optics remained pending.
What happened
In Gannon v. Hun Shing Corp., Stephen Gannon sued Hun Shing Corp. and H Optics Optometry, P.C., claiming disability discrimination under federal, state, and city laws. After Gannon voluntarily dismissed his claims against H Optics with prejudice, his claims against Hun Shing and the companies’ remaining cross-claims stayed pending for nearly two years without activity.
The court ordered the parties to report whether they intended to pursue the remaining claims. Gannon did not respond directly, and H Optics did not respond; Gannon’s lawyer said he could not reach Gannon and agreed that the case should be dismissed without prejudice. The court concluded that the parties’ failure to prosecute or respond to court orders justified dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Judge Abrams dismissed without prejudice Gannon’s claims against Hun Shing and H Optics’ cross-claim against Hun Shing. The court did not dismiss Hun Shing’s cross-claim against H Optics and ordered Hun Shing to state by May 19, 2025, whether it wished to pursue that claim or consent to its dismissal.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. Hun Shing Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-01681
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 5, 2025
Background
Stephen Gannon brought a disability-discrimination action against Hun Shing Corp. and H Optics Optometry, P.C. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Both defendants answered and asserted cross-claims against each other.
Gannon later stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of his claims against H Optics. That stipulation did not resolve his separate claims against Hun Shing or the cross-claims between Hun Shing and H Optics. Those claims remained pending, but no party took action for almost two years.
On March 31, 2025, the court directed the parties to state whether they intended to pursue the remaining claims. Only Hun Shing responded. It argued that Gannon lacked standing and had abandoned his claims by failing to prosecute them, and it said it would consent to dismissal of its cross-claim against H Optics if all claims against Hun Shing were dismissed. After the court issued another order, Gannon’s counsel said he had been unable to contact Gannon and agreed that the case should be dismissed without prejudice. H Optics did not respond.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with the rules or a court order. The court must consider the length of the noncompliance, whether the party was warned that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket compared with the party’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate. Because dismissal under Rule 41(b) is the harshest sanction, the court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that several factors supported dismissal. Gannon had taken no action to prosecute his claims for almost two years, and H Optics had not communicated with the court since May 2023. Both had notice that failing to respond could lead to dismissal, because the court’s April 14, 2025 order expressly warned of dismissal under Rule 41(b). They also had multiple opportunities to respond. The court further noted that the case had been pending for three years and that the court had an obligation to manage its docket efficiently.
The court nevertheless determined that dismissal without prejudice, rather than dismissal with prejudice, was the appropriate sanction. The case had not substantially burdened the court’s docket because the court had not decided substantive motions, overseen discovery, or scheduled a trial. Hun Shing also had not explained how it would suffer prejudice beyond the delay itself.
Disposition
The court dismissed without prejudice Gannon’s claims against Hun Shing and H Optics’ cross-claim against Hun Shing under Rule 41(b). The order did not dismiss Hun Shing’s cross-claim against H Optics. Hun Shing was ordered to notify the court by May 19, 2025, whether it wished to pursue that remaining cross-claim or consent to its dismissal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.