Eric Rogers v. Curry Express 1 Corp
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Eric Rogers v. Curry Express 1 Corp, Judge Furman dismissed the case without prejudice after Rogers repeatedly failed to follow court orders.
The dismissal ended Eric Rogers’s case against Curry Express 1 Corp., 135 Lexington Avenue LLC, and Pacific East Group Inc. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
What happened
In Eric Rogers v. Curry Express 1 Corp, Eric Rogers brought an action against Curry Express 1 Corp., 135 Lexington Avenue LLC, and Pacific East Group Inc. The first two defendants were served but did not appear or defend, and Rogers did not file the requested motion for default judgment.
The court gave Rogers several deadlines to say whether he intended to continue, but he repeatedly missed them or requested additional delays. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman explained that dismissal was warranted because Rogers appeared unwilling to proceed and repeatedly failed to follow court orders, but chose dismissal without prejudice rather than dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Eric Rogers v. Curry Express 1 Corp · No. 1:19-cv-08978
- Jesse Furman
- June 12, 2020
Background
Eric Rogers filed the action on September 26, 2019. Curry Express 1 Corp. and 135 Lexington Avenue LLC were served on October 15, 2019, but did not appear or otherwise defend. The court therefore directed Rogers to file a motion for default judgment and scheduled a hearing.
Rogers did not file the motion. Instead, he requested an extension, later filed an amended complaint naming Pacific East Group Inc. as an additional defendant, and requested an adjournment of an initial pretrial conference. The court directed him to state whether he intended to seek default judgment or otherwise proceed. Rogers said he intended to proceed but requested a 60-day stay, which the court granted subject to a status-letter deadline.
Rogers did not meet that deadline. After the court warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute, he again missed the deadline and requested another 60-day stay. The court denied that request and ordered him to state by June 10, 2020, whether he intended to proceed. Rogers filed a late request for a two-week extension to file an amended complaint naming Pacific East Group Inc., even though that defendant had already been named and served. His filing did not indicate that he intended to seek default judgment or otherwise continue the case.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with court orders. The opinion states that courts must consider five factors: the length of the failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to defendants from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket compared with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction was adequately considered. The opinion also notes that dismissal is a severe sanction reserved for extreme circumstances.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman held that dismissal was warranted because of Rogers’s apparent unwillingness to proceed and repeated failures to comply with the court’s orders. The court found that Rogers had notice that noncompliance could result in dismissal. It nevertheless concluded that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.