Girotto v. Aragvi M LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-01995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Girotto v. Aragvi M LLC: Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case with prejudice after Girotto failed to prosecute and obey court orders.
Luigi Girotto’s case against Aragvi M LLC and 44th Street Midtown Holdings LLC was dismissed with prejudice because of Girotto’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
What happened
In Girotto v. Aragvi M LLC, Luigi Girotto filed a lawsuit against Aragvi M LLC and 44th Street Midtown Holdings LLC. After filing affidavits of service, he took almost no further action for about a year, and the defendants did not answer or appear.
The court warned Girotto and his counsel that the case could be dismissed if they did not prosecute it or follow court orders. Girotto then failed to meet a deadline to respond and did not follow an order requiring him to personally serve the defendants and file proof of service.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil concluded that dismissal was warranted under Rule 41(b) because of the prolonged inaction, repeated warnings, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its cases, and the failure of lesser sanctions to prompt compliance. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- Girotto v. Aragvi M LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01995
- Vyskocil
- May 19, 2025
Background
Luigi Girotto filed this action against Aragvi M LLC and 44th Street Midtown Holdings LLC on March 17, 2024. He later filed affidavits stating that the defendants had been served and were required to answer by May 6, 2024. The defendants did not answer or otherwise appear for nearly a year, and Girotto took no action to prosecute the case during that period.
Warnings and Court Orders
On April 16, 2025, the court ordered Girotto to show why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court also directed Girotto’s counsel to explain why the court should not sanction counsel instead of dismissing the case, and warned Girotto that he remained responsible for prosecuting the case.
After the response deadline passed, Girotto filed a letter asking for more time to personally serve the defendants because he was not certain they had received service. On April 23, 2025, the court ordered him to personally serve the defendants and file proof of service by May 7, 2025. The court warned Girotto and his counsel that failure to follow court orders and diligently prosecute the case could lead to monetary sanctions and dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The opinion states that Girotto did not comply with that order or take any other action to prosecute the case.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with court orders. The court considered the required factors. It found that Girotto had failed to prosecute and comply with orders for approximately a year; had received clear and repeated warnings that dismissal could result; and subjected the defendants to possible prejudice because evidence could become less available as time passed.
The court also concluded that its interest in managing its docket outweighed Girotto’s interest in continuing the case. Finally, it considered lesser sanctions, including monetary sanctions against Girotto and his counsel, but found that neither the threat of lesser sanctions nor the threat of dismissal had prompted compliance.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also requested that the clerk close the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying legal claims between Girotto and the defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.