Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:16-cv-02762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandez v. HR Parking, Judge Gorenstein dismissed Naiim Flowers’s claims for failure to prosecute after he ignored court orders.
Naiim Flowers’s claims were dismissed. The opinion does not state whether the claims of the other plaintiffs were affected.
What happened
In Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc., the court addressed plaintiff Naiim Flowers’s failure to continue participating after his attorneys were allowed to withdraw.
The court had directed Flowers to confirm that he wished to proceed and warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal. He filed no response, so the court ordered him to explain why his claims should not be dismissed; the opinion states that he also failed to respond to multiple court orders.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein dismissed Flowers’s claims for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The opinion does not state what happened to the other plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc · No. 1:16-cv-02762
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- June 10, 2020
Background
On March 17, 2020, the court allowed David Sherr and John Gurrieri to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Naiim Flowers. The court mailed Flowers a copy of that order and instructed him to file a letter by April 2, 2020, confirming that he wished to continue with the case. The court warned that failing to file the letter could result in dismissal. Flowers did not file the letter.
Order to Show Cause
Because Flowers did not respond to the earlier order, the court ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The court required a response by May 22, 2020, and again warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal. The opinion states that Flowers failed to respond to multiple court orders and that the court provided ways for him to submit a response.
Ruling
The court considered the factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute. It cited Flowers’s failure to keep in contact with counsel, his failure to respond to multiple court orders, the continuing nature of those failures, the prejudice that delay would cause, and the absence of any indication that a lesser sanction would work. The court therefore dismissed Naiim Flowers’s claims for failure to prosecute under Rule 41. The opinion does not state the disposition of the other plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.