Dominguez v. Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Furman dismissed Dominguez v. Big Apple Archery Lanes without prejudice after Dominguez failed to prosecute, noting possible pandemic-related unresponsiveness.
Yovanny Dominguez’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc. was no longer required to proceed in the closed case.
What happened
In Dominguez v. Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc., the court required the parties to participate in mediation and ordered Yovanny Dominguez to confirm that he intended to continue the case. Dominguez did not respond to communications from the defendant or the Mediation Office and did not file the required confirmation letter.
The court considered dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move a case forward. Although the court found that Dominguez appeared unwilling to follow its orders, it also recognized that his lack of response might have been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court therefore chose the less severe form of dismissal.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11936
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 28, 2020
Background
The court had ordered the parties to participate in mediation at least two weeks before the initial pretrial conference. The conference was initially scheduled for April 22, 2020. On February 28, 2020, the court granted the defendant an agreed extension of time to respond to the complaint and reminded the parties about their mediation obligation.
On April 10, 2020, the defendant requested another extension and asked that the initial pretrial conference be postponed. The defendant stated that Dominguez had stopped responding to communications. Defense counsel had sent emails on March 27, April 2, April 3, and April 8, and the Mediation Office had sent emails on April 2 and April 8.
On April 13, 2020, the court postponed the initial pretrial conference to June 3, 2020. It also ordered Dominguez to file a letter within two weeks confirming that he intended to continue prosecuting the case and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Legal standard
The court explained that federal courts may dismiss a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with a court order. Because dismissal is one of the harshest sanctions available, the court said it should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. The court identified five considerations: the length of the plaintiff’s failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned about possible dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair chance to be heard, and whether the court considered a less severe sanction.
Ruling
The court found that Dominguez appeared entirely unwilling to comply with the court’s orders, making dismissal warranted. But the court also found that his lack of response might have been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It therefore selected dismissal without prejudice rather than dismissal with prejudice.
The order dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.