Simon J. Burchett Photography, Inc. v. Onramp Bitcoin LLC
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-10121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Simon J. Burchett Photography v. Onramp Bitcoin, Judge Rochon dismissed the case without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to correct a filing error or prosecute it.
Simon J. Burchett Photography, Inc.’s action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders; Onramp Bitcoin LLC was the defendant.
What happened
Simon J. Burchett Photography, Inc. sued Onramp Bitcoin LLC in November 2023. Onramp initially failed to respond, but the Court later set aside its default after Onramp challenged personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff then filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss the case, but the filing was defective.
The Court directed Plaintiff to correct the filing several times. Plaintiff did not correct it, respond to the Court’s orders, or otherwise show that it intended to continue the case. The Court warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Rochon dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff had not prosecuted the case or complied with the Court’s orders for more than a year and a half. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Simon J. Burchett Photography, Inc. v. Onramp Bitcoin LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10121
- Rochon
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Simon J. Burchett Photography, Inc. filed this action against Onramp Bitcoin LLC on November 17, 2023. Onramp did not answer the Complaint by the deadline, and the Clerk entered a certificate of default. Onramp then moved to set aside the default, arguing that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction and that there was good cause to set aside the default. The Court granted that motion and directed Onramp to answer or otherwise respond by January 23, 2024.
Before Onramp answered or moved to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice was defective. The Court directed counsel to correct the filing, but Plaintiff did not do so, and Onramp did not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
Failure to Prosecute
On September 15, 2025, the Court again directed the parties to properly refile the notice of voluntary dismissal by September 22, 2025. The Court warned that failure to follow its orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The deadline passed without Plaintiff correcting the filing, communicating with the Court, or indicating that it intended to pursue the action.
Rule 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or an order. The Court considered Plaintiff’s failure to comply for more than a year and a half, the warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, the interests of managing the Court’s docket and giving Plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction was appropriate. The Court also noted that dismissal was the relief Plaintiff had originally sought through its notice of voluntary dismissal.
Disposition
The Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.