Buxbaum v. Bonacorso
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-01060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Buxbaum v. Bonacorso: Judge Clarke dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) because Buxbaum did not provide proof of service or respond to the court’s order.
Michael Buxbaum’s action was dismissed after he failed to provide proof of service and did not respond to the court’s order; the court also directed that pending motions be terminated and the case closed.
What happened
In Michael Buxbaum v. Marianne Bonacorso, Buxbaum filed an amended complaint and asserted that the court had authority to hear the case based on the parties’ citizenship. The court issued a summons after he requested one.
Buxbaum did not file proof that Bonacorso had been served. The court ordered him to provide proof of service or explain why the case should not be dismissed, but he did not respond.
The court dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke found that the delay, notice of possible dismissal, likely prejudice, docket-management concerns, and lack of an effective lesser sanction supported dismissal.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Bonacorso · No. 7:25-cv-01060
- Clarke
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum filed this action on February 5, 2025, and later filed a First Amended Complaint. The court issued an order explaining that he had not identified a federal question or provided enough information to determine whether diversity jurisdiction applied. Buxbaum then filed affidavits asserting that diversity jurisdiction existed.
Buxbaum filed a Second Amended Complaint and asked that it serve as the operative complaint. He also asked the clerk to issue a summons for service on Marianne Bonacorso. The clerk issued the summons on June 12, 2025.
Failure to Prosecute
Buxbaum did not provide proof that Bonacorso had been served. On October 3, 2025, the court ordered him to file proof of service by October 16, 2025, and to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Buxbaum did not respond to that order.
Rule 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court considered the duration of Buxbaum’s failure, his notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to Bonacorso, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Buxbaum’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke concluded that these factors favored dismissal. The summons had been issued more than four months earlier, and weeks had passed since the show-cause order. The court stated that the delay would continue to prejudice Bonacorso, who might not know that Buxbaum had started the action. The court also found that lesser sanctions were unlikely to compel Buxbaum’s attention and that it had already given him an opportunity to explain the delay.
The court ordered that the action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). It also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute between Buxbaum and Bonacorso.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.