Merced v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-08327
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Merced v. Resurgent, Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice because Merced failed to prosecute it.
Merced's case against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; the court did not decide the underlying dispute.
What happened
In Merced v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., the court ordered Merced to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward.
The court set June 12, 2025, as the deadline for that explanation, but Merced did not make the required showing.
Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The detailed version
- Merced v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-08327
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
On May 29, 2025, the court ordered Merced to show cause—explain why the case should remain open—by June 12, 2025. The court stated that dismissal was being considered for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not pursue the case.
What the Court Decided
Merced did not make the required showing by the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The order does not decide the underlying merits of the dispute. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.