Monge v. Fiesta Lounge and Restaurant Corp. and Rocco A. Signore LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:26-cv-03679
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Monge v. Fiesta Lounge, Judge Cronan dismissed Javier Monge’s case without prejudice after repeated failures to follow court orders.
Javier Monge’s case was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not describe the underlying claims or state any separate relief for Fiesta Lounge and Restaurant Corp. or Rocco A. Signore LLC.
What happened
In Javier Monge v. Fiesta Lounge and Restaurant Corp. and Rocco A. Signore LLC, the court repeatedly ordered Monge to provide information about service of the lawsuit and explain any delay. Monge did not file the required letters or explanations.
The court gave Monge three opportunities to comply and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that Monge was represented by counsel and ignored all three orders for more than a month.
Judge John P. Cronan ruled that dismissal was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff does not pursue a case or follow court orders. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The detailed version
- Monge v. Fiesta Lounge and Restaurant Corp. and Rocco A. Signore LLC · No. 1:26-cv-03679
- John Cronan
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
Javier Monge brought this case against Fiesta Lounge and Restaurant Corp. and Rocco A. Signore LLC on April 19, 2026. The opinion does not describe the claims.
On July 22, 2026, the court ordered Monge to file a status letter addressing whether the defendants had been served with the summons and complaint and, if not, why there was good cause to excuse the failure to serve them within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The deadline was July 29, 2026. The court warned that it could dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if Monge did not file the letter.
Monge did not file the letter. On July 30, 2026, the court ordered him to explain by August 6 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Monge did not respond. The court then gave him one final opportunity, ordering him on August 18 to show cause by August 25 why the case should not be dismissed. Monge again did not respond.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with a court order. The court considered five factors: the length of the failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendants from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
Ruling
The court concluded that all five factors supported dismissal. Monge, who was represented by counsel, had ignored three court orders for more than a month. The orders warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal without prejudice. The court found the delay inexcusable and stated that prejudice could be presumed from lengthy and inexcusable delay. It also determined that dismissal appropriately balanced docket management with Monge’s right to due process.
The court considered less severe sanctions by giving Monge additional opportunities to comply. After he disregarded all three orders, the court concluded that he appeared to have abandoned the litigation. Judge John P. Cronan therefore dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.