Scott v. PepsiCo
Carol Scott v. PepsiCo, Inc. Short Term Disability Plan and PepsiCo, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carol Scott v. PepsiCo, Judge Rochon dismissed the action without prejudice because Scott failed to prosecute or follow court orders.
Carol Scott’s disability-benefits action against PepsiCo, Inc. Short Term Disability Plan and PepsiCo, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
Carol Scott sued PepsiCo, Inc. Short Term Disability Plan and PepsiCo, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan seeking short- and long-term disability benefits. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, where the plans filed a motion to dismiss that Scott did not oppose.
Scott’s lawyer later asked to withdraw. After the lawyer withdrew, the court told Scott to obtain new counsel or say she would represent herself by September 26, 2025. The court warned that failing to respond or otherwise pursue the case could lead to dismissal. Scott did not provide the required update or otherwise communicate with the court.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The court closed the case and terminated the pending motions, but rejected the defendants’ request for dismissal with prejudice because the case had not significantly burdened the court and the prejudice to the defendants was relatively minor.
The detailed version
- Scott v. PepsiCo · No. 1:25-cv-03286
- Rochon
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
Carol Scott filed the action seeking entitlement to and payment of short- and long-term disability benefits from PepsiCo, Inc. Short Term Disability Plan and PepsiCo, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan. The action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and was transferred to the Southern District of New York on April 21, 2025.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but Scott did not file an opposition despite receiving an extension. Scott’s attorney later reported that she was no longer representing Scott and moved to withdraw. The court granted that motion after a hearing at which Scott was present. The court then ordered Scott to obtain new counsel or notify the court that she intended to proceed without a lawyer by September 26, 2025. The court warned that failure to provide the update or otherwise prosecute the case could result in dismissal.
Issue
The issue was whether the case should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Scott failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the court’s orders.
Court’s ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss on its merits.
Reasoning
The court explained that a district court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with court rules or an order. In deciding whether dismissal was appropriate, the court considered the length of Scott’s failure to comply, the warnings she received, possible prejudice from delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Scott’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be sufficient.
The court found that Scott had made no effort to prosecute the case since its transfer in April 2025. She had received multiple warnings, an extension to oppose the motion to dismiss, service of the court’s orders through her former lawyer, and information about free legal services. Despite those opportunities, she did not provide the required status update or otherwise communicate with the court. The court concluded that dismissal was warranted instead of a lesser sanction.
The defendants requested dismissal with prejudice. The court instead chose dismissal without prejudice because the case had not significantly burdened the court: no substantive motions had been decided, discovery had not occurred, no contested hearings had been held, and no trial schedule had been set. The court also found that the prejudice to the defendants was relatively minor.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.