Jimenez v. Square Food & Cafe Inc.
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-03361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jimenez v. Square Food, Judge Tarnofsky extended Jimenez’s deadline and warned that noncompliance could lead to a dismissal recommendation.
Marcellino Jimenez, whose wage-and-hour case remains pending but is subject to a July 7, 2025 deadline to retain counsel or notify the court that he will proceed without a lawyer. Square Food and Cafe, Inc. is affected because the case may later be subject to a dismissal recommendation if Jimenez does not comply.
What happened
Marcellino Jimenez v. Square Food and Cafe, Inc. is a case seeking money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Jimenez’s former lawyer withdrew after Jimenez stopped responding, and no new lawyer appeared.
The court previously gave Jimenez deadlines to hire a lawyer or tell the court he wanted to continue without one. Jimenez did neither, did not respond to two orders requiring him to explain why the case should continue, and did not attend a scheduled telephone conference.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky extended Jimenez’s deadline to July 7, 2025, to hire new counsel or notify the court that he will proceed without a lawyer. The judge warned that failing to comply could result in a recommendation to Judge Ronnie Abrams that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute; the order did not dismiss Jimenez’s case.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Square Food & Cafe Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03361
- Tarnofsky
- June 10, 2025
Background
Jimenez brought an action for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case originally also included Fidel Guzman. Guzman and Square Food and Cafe, Inc. reached a settlement, which the court approved, and Guzman’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Jimenez’s lawyer moved to withdraw because Jimenez persistently failed to respond to communications. The court granted that motion and gave Jimenez until February 10, 2025, to retain new counsel or notify the court that he wished to proceed without a lawyer. No new lawyer appeared, and Jimenez did not notify the court that he wanted to continue without counsel.
Failure to Respond
The court ordered Jimenez to show cause—meaning to explain—why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Jimenez did not respond by the first deadline or by a later deadline set in a second order. The court then scheduled a telephone conference to determine whether Jimenez intended to continue litigating, with or without counsel. Jimenez did not contact the court or attend the conference, despite the court’s warning that nonattendance could lead to a recommendation for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The opinion states that Jimenez was not one of the parties who consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, so the magistrate judge could recommend dismissal but could not order a final disposition of his claims.
Order
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky retroactively extended Jimenez’s time to respond to the order to show cause until July 7, 2025. Jimenez may comply by having new counsel file a notice of appearance or by sending a letter stating whether he intends to proceed without a lawyer. The judge cautioned that she did not expect to grant further extensions and warned that failure to comply, without requesting an extension, may result in a report and recommendation to Judge Ronnie Abrams to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not dismiss Jimenez’s claims or decide the merits of his wage claims. As an unrepresented party, Jimenez was also reminded to notify the court of any address change.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.