Moy v. Shkolnik

Background

Selma Moy brought an employment discrimination action against her former employer, Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC, and individual defendants who worked at the firm. In a July 22, 2024 order, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Moy’s hostile-work-environment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and dismissed her claims against Gloria Werle and Salvatore C. Badala. Other discrimination and retaliation claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws were allowed to continue against Napoli Shkolnik, Paul Napoli, and Marie Napoli.

The court’s case-management order required initial disclosures by September 30, 2024, completion of fact discovery by January 31, 2025, and completion of expert discovery by March 17, 2025. Defendants served discovery requests on Moy on December 6, 2024. Moy did not provide initial disclosures during the required period and did not respond to defendants’ interrogatories or requests for documents.

On January 31, 2025—the last day of fact discovery—Moy sought a 60-day extension. The court denied the request because she had not shown diligence and had filed the request too late under the court’s rules. After discovery closed, Moy purported to serve initial disclosures dated February 7, 2025. Defendants filed their summary-judgment motion on February 4, 2025. Moy’s opposition was due March 10, 2025, but she filed it on March 24 without requesting an extension. Her counsel later attributed the delay to a calendaring and scheduling error.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A defendant may meet its burden by showing that the opposing party lacks evidence supporting an essential part of the case. The opposing party must identify particular record materials showing a genuine factual dispute.

The court also considered the factors used to determine whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Those factors include delay, notice, prejudice to the defendants, judicial efficiency, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Moy did not participate in fact discovery while it was open. She did not submit timely initial disclosures, respond to defendants’ discovery requests, identify supporting witnesses and documents, or explain why she failed to meet those obligations. The materials and names of 17 potential witnesses that Moy identified in her opposition had not been disclosed during fact discovery, so the court found that the late submission could not cure her earlier failures.

The court also found that Moy had not timely opposed the summary-judgment motion and had not shown good cause for the delay. It concluded that allowing the case to proceed would require reopening discovery and starting over, which would prejudice defendants and undermine judicial efficiency. Although Moy had not been specifically warned that dismissal might result from noncompliance with the case-management order, the court concluded that the other factors favored dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

Judge Dale E. Ho granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court stated that there was no timely disclosed record evidence supporting Moy’s claims and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not state the final disposition using the phrase “dismissed with prejudice,” although it discusses dismissal with prejudice when analyzing whether a lesser sanction would be effective.