Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 4, 2020

Varela Calero v. Golden Abacus Inc.

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:18-cv-06874
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Varela Calero v. Golden Abacus, Judge Nathan dismissed the action with prejudice after Plaintiff failed to respond or appear without a lawyer.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended Plaintiff’s action against Golden Abacus Inc. and the other defendants, and the Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

What happened

In Varela Calero v. Golden Abacus Inc., Plaintiff’s former lawyer asked to withdraw after losing contact with him. Plaintiff had indicated he wanted to end the case, but the lawyer could not confirm that request.

After allowing the lawyer to withdraw, the court repeatedly warned Plaintiff that he needed to hire a new lawyer or file notice that he would proceed without one. Plaintiff did neither, and mail sent to his last known address was returned.

Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. She directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Varela Calero v. Golden Abacus Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06874
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
June 4, 2020

Background

Plaintiff’s former counsel, Michael Faillace, moved to withdraw because his office had been unable to contact Plaintiff despite numerous attempts. Plaintiff had previously told a paralegal in the law office that he wanted to discontinue the action, but counsel could not confirm that request. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The court then warned Plaintiff in several orders that he had to obtain new counsel or file a notice stating that he would proceed without a lawyer. The warnings stated that otherwise the action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not obtain new counsel or file the required notice. The court also mailed its most recent warning to Plaintiff’s last known address, but the Postal Service returned the mailing.

Legal Standard

A court may dismiss an action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning a party has not taken the steps needed to move the case forward. The court considered five factors: the length of the delay, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendants, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a chance to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

Ruling

Judge Alison J. Nathan concluded that all five factors supported dismissal. Plaintiff’s conduct had prevented progress in the case since at least the previous September. He had received multiple warnings, and any prejudice to the defendants from unreasonable delay could be presumed. The court also found that Plaintiff had effectively given up his opportunity to have the case heard by failing to respond to his former counsel and the court or provide updated contact information. Finally, the court found that any sanction other than dismissal would be futile because it could not contact Plaintiff.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case, and to mail the order and forthcoming judgment to Plaintiff at his last known address.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.