Karelina v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-10249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Karelina v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice because Karelina failed to prosecute.
Karelina's action was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain any separate effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Karelina v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., the court ordered Karelina to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move the case forward.
Karelina did not provide the required explanation. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Karelina v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-10249
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
On August 25, 2020, the court ordered Karelina to show why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that Karelina was required to make this showing by a date in September 2020, but the day is unclear in the text provided.
Ruling
Karelina did not make the required showing. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling based solely on that dismissal, although the opinion does not discuss any other filing requirements or limitations.
Reasoning and Effect
The court cited Rule 41(b) and explained that the rule gives a district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute. Because the court dismissed the action for this procedural reason, the order did not resolve the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.