In Re: Cardoso
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-00186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Re: Cardoso: Judge Karas dismissed the appellants’ case without prejudice after they failed to prosecute or respond to the Court’s order.
Joaquin Edward Cardoso and Jane Johnston Cardoso’s case was dismissed without prejudice; appellee Krista Preuss was directed to receive a copy of the order.
What happened
In Re: Cardoso involved appellants Joaquin Edward Cardoso and Jane Johnston Cardoso and appellee Krista Preuss. The Court ordered the appellants to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, giving them 20 days to respond.
The appellants did not take any action to move the case forward and did not communicate with the Court after the order. The Court therefore considered whether dismissal was appropriate under the federal rule allowing dismissal when a party fails to prosecute or follow a court order.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that the relevant factors favored dismissal and dismissed the appellants’ case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to the appellants and appellee.
The detailed version
- In Re: Cardoso · No. 7:20-cv-00186
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
The appellants were Joaquin Edward Cardoso and Jane Johnston Cardoso; the appellee was Krista Preuss. On October 9, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring the appellants to explain within 20 days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The appellants did not prosecute the case or otherwise communicate with the Court.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with the federal rules or a court order. The Court explained that a district court may dismiss for failure to prosecute on its own authority. It also noted that dismissal is a harsh remedy and that courts should consider the length of the delay, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the opposing party, the balance between court efficiency and the right to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
Ruling
The Court concluded that these factors favored dismissal because the appellants had not taken a single action to prosecute the case. The Court dismissed the appellants’ case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was requested to mail a copy of the order to both appellants and the appellee at the addresses listed on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.