Wildman v. Experian

Background

Two actions involving the same parties were removed from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in February 2025. The cases were designated as related and later consolidated.

In Case No. 1:25-cv-1387, Experian filed a motion to dismiss. The court gave Wildman permission to file an amended complaint by April 8, 2025, but Wildman did not amend the complaint or oppose the motion. Experian then asked the court to end that case because Wildman had not filed an amended complaint or, alternatively, to order him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.

In Case No. 1:25-cv-1180, the court denied Experian’s motion to dismiss because Experian had not followed the court’s rule requiring a letter requesting a pre-motion conference before filing such a motion. The court also noted that the complaint alleged negligence by “TransUnion” and mentioned Experian only in the caption. The court gave Wildman until April 4, 2025, to file an amended complaint, but he did not do so. Experian later sought permission to file another motion to dismiss and moved to consolidate the two cases. Wildman did not timely respond to those requests.

Failure to Prosecute

The court scheduled a conference for May 6, 2025, to address the cases and Wildman’s missed deadlines. The orders directed him to be prepared to explain his failures, state whether he consented to consolidation, and say whether he intended to file an amended complaint. The orders also warned that failing to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal. Wildman did not attend the conference.

The court then consolidated the cases and issued an order requiring Wildman to show why the cases should not be ended for failure to prosecute, failure to respond to Experian’s motions, and failure to comply with court orders. The order required him to state by June 5, 2025, whether he intended to continue the case and file an amended, consolidated complaint. It expressly warned that the cases would be dismissed if he did not respond and that failure to prosecute or comply could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wildman did not respond or take any further action.

Under Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court considered the required factors: the length of Wildman’s noncompliance, the repeated warnings, the prejudice to Experian from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket while giving Wildman a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective. The court found that all factors favored ending the cases. It also concluded that lesser sanctions would not be effective because Wildman had not communicated with the court despite repeated warnings and opportunities to proceed.

Disposition

The court ordered that the above-captioned actions be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket number 4 in Case No. 1:25-cv-1387 and close both consolidated cases. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against Experian.