In Re: Lindsay

Background

Heather Jeanne Lindsay appealed an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Her opening brief was initially due December 16, 2024. The court granted extensions through December 27, January 9, January 24, and finally February 7, 2025. Each extension gave her additional time to file the brief, and the later orders warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Lindsay did not file an opening brief or contact the court. On February 18, 2025, the court dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff or appellant fails to pursue a case or comply with a court order. Lindsay then filed a timely motion asking the court to reconsider that dismissal. Although she did not explain her earlier failure to act, the court granted reconsideration, in part because she was representing herself and the motion was unopposed. The court ordered her to file opening briefs in this case and a related appeal, docket number 1:24-cv-08064, by May 1, 2025, and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal.

Lindsay did not file either brief by that deadline and did not otherwise communicate with the court.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute: the length of the delay, whether the appellant had notice that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket compared with the appellant’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate.

The court found that Lindsay had failed to file her opening brief in either appeal for nearly five months. It also found that she had received repeated and clear warnings, including a warning that the deadline after reconsideration was her “last opportunity.” The court treated possible prejudice to the appellees as a neutral factor because the record did not show whether further delay would prejudice them.

The court concluded that its interest in managing the docket outweighed Lindsay’s interest in continuing the appeals after multiple extensions and unheeded orders. It also concluded that a lesser sanction was not warranted, while noting that dismissal without prejudice was less severe than dismissal with prejudice.

Disposition

The court dismissed the above-captioned case and the related case, docket number 1:24-cv-08064, without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The court also directed that the order be mailed to Lindsay, and directed the appellees to mail it to her and file proof of service. The opinion did not decide the merits of Lindsay’s bankruptcy appeals.