Borrani v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-09397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Borrani v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because Borrani failed to prosecute after repeated court orders.
Grace Borrani’s action against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, and other defendants was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Borrani v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC involved Grace Borrani’s case against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, and other defendants.
The court had ordered Borrani at least three times to file an amended complaint or explain why the case should not be dismissed. She did neither and did not otherwise communicate with the court. The court also noted that she had filed a separate complaint against Nationstar.
Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court concluded that the relevant factors supported dismissal, including Borrani’s repeated failure to follow the court’s orders and the warnings that the case could be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Borrani v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · No. 7:17-cv-09397
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 17, 2020
Background
The court issued an order on October 9, 2020, requiring Grace Borrani to explain by November 9 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that Borrani had not filed an amended complaint and had not otherwise communicated with the court.
The court also stated that Borrani had previously been ordered at least three times to file an amended complaint or show why the case should continue. Each order warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal. The court noted that Borrani had filed a separate complaint against Nationstar.
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 rules or a court order. The court explained that a district court may initiate this type of dismissal on its own, but that dismissal for failure to prosecute is a severe remedy reserved for extreme situations.
Before dismissing a case, courts generally consider the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff received notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the balance between court efficiency and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would work. No single factor controls.
Ruling
The court concluded that these factors favored dismissal. In particular, Borrani repeatedly failed to comply with orders that warned of possible dismissal. The court dismissed Borrani’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Borrani. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.