Sypert v. Medical Arts Radiological Group, P.C.

Background

Kathleen Sypert sued Medical Arts Radiological Group, P.C., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendant answered on November 14, 2018.

The parties had not been in contact with the court for nearly two years. On November 12, 2020, the court ordered Sypert to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, for not moving the case forward. The court warned that failing to comply with its orders could result in sanctions, including dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Sypert did not respond and had not otherwise contacted the court for more than two years.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors used when deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute: the length of the plaintiff’s failures; whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal; likely prejudice to the defendant; the balance between managing the court’s docket and protecting the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard; and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.

The court found that each factor supported dismissal. Sypert had not complied with the show-cause order or otherwise advanced the case for more than two years. She had received clear notice that the case could be dismissed. The court stated that prejudice could be presumed from the lengthy and inexcusable absence. It also found that Sypert had not used her opportunity to be heard and that no lesser sanction would effectively address her failure to prosecute.

Ruling

Judge Ramos dismissed Sypert’s claims with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order resolved the case based on failure to prosecute and did not analyze the alleged violations of the disability-rights laws.