Cordero v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Denyse Cordero alleged that she booked a July 2022 flight to Mexico on United Airlines and arrived with luggage containing new, expensive items, including designer handbags and shoes. After a dispute about signing a liability waiver, her ticket was canceled. She alleged that United nevertheless accepted her luggage and lost it.

Cordero initially filed the case in New York state court. Her claims included breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She sought $120,000 in damages. United removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Discovery history

The court set deadlines for the parties to exchange information and documents. After Cordero did not provide discovery responses, the court granted extensions and repeatedly instructed her to respond to United’s document requests and interrogatories or state specific objections.

Cordero did not produce documents or written objections, stopped communicating with United, failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference, and did not comply with orders requiring discovery responses. On December 19, 2024, the court granted United’s motion to compel and ordered Cordero to provide complete responses. That order warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of some or all of the case. Cordero did not meet the deadline.

United then moved for dismissal as a discovery sanction. Cordero did not file an opposition by the original deadline or by an extended deadline. She stated that personal and health-related reasons prevented her from participating and offered to provide medical documentation, but she did not submit that documentation. The court ultimately stated that it would decide the motion based on United’s submissions.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a court to dismiss a case when a party fails to obey a discovery order. The court considered four factors: whether the failure was willful or otherwise justified, whether lesser sanctions could work, how long the failure lasted, and whether the party was warned about the consequences.

The recommendation concluded that all four factors favored dismissal. First, the court found willful noncompliance because its instructions were clear, Cordero repeatedly failed to provide discovery, and she did not support her health-related explanation with documentation. Second, the failure lasted more than a year and substantially delayed the case. Third, Cordero was expressly warned that continued failure to follow discovery orders could result in dismissal, and she received another warning after United filed its motion. Fourth, the court found no reason to believe a lesser sanction would be effective because Cordero had received multiple extensions and opportunities but still had not produced a single document.

Recommendation and next steps

Judge Ricardo recommended that United’s motion be granted and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. This was a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge, not the final district-court ruling stated in the opinion. The parties were given fourteen days to file objections for review by District Judge John P. Cronan.