Jimenez v. Square Food & Cafe Inc.
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-03361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jimenez v. Square Food and Cafe, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky scheduled a status conference and warned that nonappearance could lead to a dismissal recommendation.
Marcellino Jimenez is required to attend the scheduled telephone status conference or risk a recommendation that his case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Square Food and Cafe, Inc. and its counsel were directed to participate. The order did not resolve Jimenez’s wage claims on the merits.
What happened
In Jimenez v. Square Food and Cafe, Marcellino Jimenez’s lawyer withdrew, and Jimenez did not tell the court that he had hired a new lawyer or wanted to continue without one. The case involves claims for unpaid wages under federal and New York law.
The court scheduled a telephone status conference for May 22, 2025. Jimenez and the defendant’s lawyer were directed to attend by calling the court’s conference line. The order did not dismiss the case.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky warned that Jimenez’s failure to attend without telling the court in advance could lead to a recommendation that Judge Ronnie Abrams dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Because Jimenez had not agreed to the magistrate judge’s authority to enter a final judgment, Judge Tarnofsky stated that she could recommend dismissal but could not order a final disposition of his claims.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Square Food & Cafe Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03361
- Tarnofsky
- May 6, 2025
Background
Marcellino Jimenez and Fidel Guzman brought an action for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Guzman and Square Food and Cafe, Inc. later settled, and the court approved that settlement as fair and reasonable. Jimenez’s claims remained unresolved.
Counsel and Failure to Respond
On January 8, 2025, the court granted Jimenez’s lawyer permission to withdraw. The court gave Jimenez until February 10, 2025, to retain a new lawyer or notify the court that he wished to proceed without a lawyer. Jimenez did neither. The court then ordered him to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, with a response due March 21, 2025. Jimenez did not timely comply, although the court later extended his deadline to April 30, 2025. The docket still did not show that he had retained replacement counsel or confirmed that he wished to continue without a lawyer.
Order
The court scheduled a telephone status conference for May 22, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. Jimenez and defense counsel were directed to call the court’s conference line. The court cautioned that Jimenez’s failure to appear without prior notice could result in a recommendation to Judge Ronnie Abrams that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Authority to Enter a Final Disposition
The order explained that Guzman and the defendant had consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the action, but Jimenez had not consented. Because a party’s consent to a magistrate judge’s authority must be clear and express, Judge Tarnofsky stated that she could recommend dismissal of Jimenez’s action but could not order a final disposition of his claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.