Rupasinghe v. Rajapakse
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-10391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rupasinghe v. Rajapakse, Judge Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice after Rupasinghe failed to serve defendants or respond to a court order.
The action brought by A. Anura Rupasinghe against Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapakse, Michael R. Pompae, and the United States Department of State was dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Rupasinghe v. Rajapakse, A. Anura Rupasinghe sued Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapakse, Michael R. Pompae, and the United States Department of State. The court issued summonses, but the opinion says Rupasinghe apparently did not serve the complaint or summonses on the defendants.
The court ordered Rupasinghe to explain why service had not been completed within the required 90 days or to explain when and how service had occurred. The deadline was April 24, 2020, but Rupasinghe did not respond or otherwise indicate that he intended to continue the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Rupasinghe v. Rajapakse · No. 1:19-cv-10391
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
A. Anura Rupasinghe filed the action on November 8, 2019, against Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapakse, Michael R. Pompae, and the United States Department of State. The court issued a summons for each defendant that day. The opinion states that Rupasinghe did not appear to have served the complaint or summonses on the defendants.
Court Order and Nonresponse
On March 19, 2020, the court ordered Rupasinghe to submit a letter by April 24, 2020. The letter had to explain why he had not served the summonses and complaint within the 90 days required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or, if he believed service had occurred, explain when and how it was made. The court warned that failure to show good cause for the lack of timely service would lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Rupasinghe did not respond to that order and did not otherwise indicate that he intended to pursue the action.
Ruling
Rule 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with the rules or a court order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because it had received no response from Rupasinghe, including no indication that he intended to continue the case. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams did not address the underlying claims.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not state why Rupasinghe failed to serve the defendants or whether he may have another basis for pursuing the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.