Manhattan Global Investments LLC v. Synergistic Media LLC, et al.

Background

The court had previously allowed Manhattan Global Investments LLC’s former counsel to withdraw. The court cited counsel’s representations that there were irreconcilable disagreements about handling the litigation and the plaintiff’s failure to provide an additional retainer after the court denied preliminary injunctive relief.

The withdrawal order warned that the plaintiff could not proceed in federal court without a lawyer. It set a deadline for the plaintiff to retain new counsel and warned that the action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if counsel did not appear. The court also stayed the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint.

The plaintiff requested additional time through a letter filed by Mr. Anjum Malik, who represented that he was the plaintiff’s “Founding Managing Member.” The court granted two extensions. In its last extension order, the court stated that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances and that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if counsel had not appeared by October 1, 2025. The plaintiff did not retain new counsel, and defense counsel requested dismissal. The opinion also states that the litigation had begun more than seven months earlier, on March 18, 2025, in New York Supreme Court, New York County.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court orders. The court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court administration and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.

Court’s analysis

The court found that all five factors supported dismissal. The delay was attributable to the plaintiff, which had received multiple opportunities to retain counsel. The court had repeatedly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice. The court also found that further delay would prejudice the defendants because their obligation to answer the complaint had been stayed while it remained unclear whether the litigation would continue.

The court concluded that noncompliance with its orders interfered with its ability to manage its docket. It also considered lesser sanctions, including the two extensions already granted, but found those measures ineffective because the plaintiff appeared to have abandoned the litigation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It declined to dismiss with prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.