Fernandez v. Cowan Systems LLC
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-09730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jhonel Antonio Estevez Fernandez v. Cowan Systems, Judge Garnett dismissed the personal-injury case after plaintiff ignored court deadlines and did not respond to fraud allegations.
Jhonel Antonio Estevez Fernandez’s action was dismissed, and the clerk was directed to close the case. Cowan Systems LLC and the other defendants were no longer required to litigate the action in that case.
What happened
Jhonel Antonio Estevez Fernandez’s personal-injury case was removed to federal court by Cowan Systems LLC and other defendants. His two attorneys later withdrew, and the defendants raised allegations suggesting the case was fraudulent.
The court ordered Estevez Fernandez to say whether he intended to continue the case and to respond to the fraud allegations. He did not contact the court by the required deadlines, did not obtain new counsel, and apparently did not conduct required fact discovery or request more time.
The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and under its inherent authority to protect against fraud on the court and enforce its orders. Judge Margaret M. Garnett directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. Cowan Systems LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09730
- Garnett
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
Defendants removed this personal-injury action from state court on December 17, 2024. Plaintiff Jhonel Antonio Estevez Fernandez had two attorneys appear for him. David S. Levy later withdrew because of “unforeseen circumstances,” and Scott Rynecki also withdrew after reviewing the case and allegations. The opinion does not state the attorneys’ further reasons for withdrawing.
On September 12, 2025, defendants’ counsel submitted a letter alleging that the case appeared fraudulent and stating that there had been little or no prosecution of the action. The court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause by filing a letter stating whether he intended to continue the case and responding to the fraud allegations. The order warned that the court would dismiss the case after November 13, 2025, if Plaintiff did not communicate as directed. Defendants’ counsel filed proof that Plaintiff had been served with the order.
Failure to Prosecute
Plaintiff did not contact the court by the October 31, 2025 deadline or by the later November 13 deadline. The court also noted that Plaintiff apparently had not conducted fact discovery by the September 30 deadline set in an earlier order and had not requested an extension.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute. The court considered the required factors: the length of Plaintiff’s noncompliance, his notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to defendants from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Plaintiff’s interest in being heard, and whether a less severe sanction would work. The court found that the first, second, third, and fifth factors favored dismissal; the fourth factor was neutral. The court also found that Plaintiff had intentionally chosen not to participate because he had received notice of the attorneys’ withdrawals and the court’s order but still did not respond.
Fraud Allegations and Disposition
The court stated that it has inherent authority to investigate fraud on the court. It found that defendants’ allegations raised serious concerns, that both of Plaintiff’s attorneys had promptly withdrawn for unspecified reasons, and that Plaintiff had not responded to the allegations or sought additional time. The court therefore dismissed the case both for failure to prosecute and because of the uncontroverted allegations of fraud on the court.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.