Dominguez v. Aedes De Venustas, Inc.

Background

Yovanny Dominguez sued Aedes De Venustas, Inc., for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated people. The opinion states that the defendant had not appeared in the case. In an earlier order, the court said that if the defendant did not appear by July 1, 2020, it expected Dominguez to seek a judgment based on the defendant’s failure to appear. That order also warned that continued failure to prosecute could result in dismissal.

Failure to Prosecute

The court stated that Dominguez had done nothing to prosecute the case after the earlier warning. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with a rule or court order. The court explained that a district court may dismiss a case on its own initiative for failure to prosecute, although dismissal is a harsh remedy generally reserved for extreme situations.

In deciding whether dismissal was appropriate, the court considered the length of the plaintiff’s inaction, the prior warning, the effect of delay on the court and other litigants, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective. The court said that Dominguez had shown disinterest in pursuing the claims and that allowing the case to remain on the docket would be unfair to other litigants awaiting the court’s attention.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The order directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all deadlines, close the case, and serve the order on the plaintiffs by certified mail. The opinion uses both singular and plural references to the plaintiff or plaintiffs; it does not explain that discrepancy.