Bilgoray v. Andes
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-00584
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bilgoray v. Andes, Judge Clarke dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) because Abraham Bilgoray failed to prosecute it.
Abraham Bilgoray’s action against Mike Andes and the other defendants was dismissed for failure to prosecute; the court also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
What happened
In Bilgoray v. Andes, Abraham Bilgoray sued Mike Andes and other defendants over claims involving fraud, negligent misrepresentation, rescission, damages, and other equitable relief.
After the defendants moved to compel arbitration or otherwise transfer or dismiss the case, Bilgoray missed the opposition deadline and did not respond to two court orders directing him to explain the delay. He also did not communicate with the court after the second deadline.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Bilgoray v. Andes · No. 7:25-cv-00584
- Clarke
- June 17, 2025
Background
Abraham Bilgoray originally filed the action in state court on December 16, 2024. He asserted claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation and sought rescission, damages, and other equitable relief. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 21, 2025.
On February 21, 2025, the defendants moved to compel arbitration or, alternatively, to transfer the case or dismiss it under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bilgoray did not oppose the motion by the deadline, which passed by nearly six weeks. The court then issued an order directing him to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed and why his failure to respond should be excused. Bilgoray did not respond.
The court later issued a second order directing Bilgoray to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. That order required him to submit a letter by June 6, 2025, showing good cause for the delay and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. Bilgoray did not submit the letter or otherwise communicate with the court.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or orders. The court applied five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendants from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the factors favored dismissal. Bilgoray’s absence had stalled the litigation for months. The court had given him two opportunities to resume litigating the case or respond to the defendants’ motion, including an express warning that failing to respond could lead to dismissal. The court also concluded that further delay would prejudice the defendants and that lesser sanctions did not appear likely to compel Bilgoray’s attention. It stated that it had already balanced Bilgoray’s opportunity to be heard against the court’s need to manage its docket.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.