Wilmot v. Monsanto Company
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wilmot v. Monsanto Company, Judge Torres adjourned the conference, ordered overdue filings, and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The plaintiff and defendant were required to submit a joint letter and proposed case management plan; the plaintiff was additionally required to address possible transfer to the pending multidistrict litigation proceeding.
What happened
In Wilmot v. Monsanto Company, the parties repeatedly missed deadlines to submit a joint letter and proposed case management plan. The court had extended the deadline several times, most recently to April 14, 2020.
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 21, 2020, and set a new conference date stated in the order as May 721, 2020. The parties were ordered to submit their joint letter and proposed plan by May 14, 2020. The plaintiff was also ordered to update the court about whether the case was expected to be transferred to a pending multidistrict litigation proceeding.
Judge Analisa Torres warned that the plaintiff's failure to follow multiple court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Wilmot v. Monsanto Company · No. 1:19-cv-09785
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 17, 2020
Background
The court had ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case management plan by February 26, 2020. After the deadline passed, the court extended it to February 28, March 11, and April 14, 2020. Each deadline passed without the required submission.
The complaint stated that the case was implicated by a pending multidistrict litigation proceeding. The court therefore required the plaintiff to address in the joint letter whether the plaintiff expected the case to be transferred to that proceeding.
Order
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 21, 2020, to a new date stated in the order as May 721, 2020, at 10:20 a.m. The parties were ordered to submit their joint letter and proposed case management plan by May 14, 2020.
The court reminded the plaintiff that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with the federal rules or a court order. The court cited authority stating that a district court may dismiss a case on its own initiative for failure to prosecute. The order warned about possible dismissal but did not dismiss the case or rule on the underlying claims.
Disposition
The initial pretrial conference was adjourned, and the parties were given another deadline for the required submission. The order also required the plaintiff to provide information about possible transfer to the multidistrict litigation proceeding. The order's reference to “May 721, 2020” appears to contain a date error; the opinion does not clarify the intended date. Judge Analisa Torres issued the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.