Mendoza v. 901 Columbus Deli Corp.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-09586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mendoza v. 901 Columbus Deli, Judge Failla dismissed the action with prejudice after Mendoza repeatedly ignored court orders and failed to prosecute.
Jorge Mendoza’s action was dismissed with prejudice, ending his case against 901 Columbus Deli Corp., 901 Fresh Deli Corp., Said Mohsin M Saleh, and Mohamed Abolo Shuaibi. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
What happened
In Mendoza v. 901 Columbus Deli Corp., Jorge Mendoza’s lawyer asked to withdraw after Mendoza stopped communicating with counsel for about four months. The court allowed the withdrawal and gave Mendoza time to obtain a new lawyer or say he would proceed without one.
Mendoza did neither. After the court warned that the case could be dismissed, it ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute and follow court orders. Mendoza did not respond and took no further action.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the repeated failures, the warnings Mendoza received, and the court’s consideration of lesser penalties supported dismissal. The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, closed the case, and terminated pending motions.
The detailed version
- Mendoza v. 901 Columbus Deli Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-09586
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Jorge Mendoza filed this action against 901 Columbus Deli Corp. doing business as Sammy’s Deli, 901 Fresh Deli Corp. doing business as Sammy’s Deli, Said Mohsin M Saleh, and Mohamed Abolo Shuaibi. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Mendoza was initially represented by Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC. His counsel asked to withdraw under Local Civil Rule 1.4 because Mendoza had not responded to counsel’s repeated attempts to contact him for approximately four months. The court granted the request and gave Mendoza until July 2, 2025, to obtain new counsel or indicate that he wished to proceed without a lawyer. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the case.
Failure to Respond
Mendoza took no action by the deadline. On July 11, 2025, the court ordered him to explain in writing, by August 11, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Mendoza did not respond to that order and took no further action.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), along with the court’s inherent authority, permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court considered the five relevant factors: the length of the failure, notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice from further delay, the balance between docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether the court considered a less severe sanction.
The court found that the factors supported dismissal. Mendoza had failed to prosecute for months, had not communicated with counsel for about four months before counsel withdrew, and had not communicated with either counsel or the court for about eight months overall. The court had warned him about dismissal and had attempted a less severe response by issuing warnings and giving him opportunities to respond.
Disposition
The court DISMISSES the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the order, mail a copy to Mendoza at his address of record, terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.