Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund v. Trucking
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds v. Regional Trucking, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02386
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund v. Regional Trucking, Inc., Judge Halpern ordered plaintiffs to explain their inactivity or face dismissal.
The plaintiffs were required to respond by January 15, 2021, or risk dismissal of the action. The defendants were also affected because the court had not received their responses to the complaint, but the order imposed the written show-cause requirement on the plaintiffs.
What happened
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds and Westchester Teamsters Local Union No. 456 sued Regional Trucking, Inc. and Autumn Mosca under federal labor and employee-benefit laws.
The court noted that plaintiffs had filed no documents for more than five months after serving the defendants, and that defendants had not responded to the complaint by the stated deadline.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered plaintiffs to explain in writing by January 15, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund v. Trucking · No. 7:20-cv-02386
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs—Teamsters Local 456 Pension, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training, Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds, acting through their trustees and fiduciaries, and Westchester Teamsters Local Union No. 456—brought claims against Regional Trucking, Inc., also known as Regional Trucking Inc., and Autumn Mosca, individually. The complaint alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act.
The plaintiffs filed the action on March 18,
- Summonses were issued the next day, and the plaintiffs filed affidavits showing service on the defendants on July 14,
- The court stated that, apart from a reassignment from one magistrate judge to another, the docket had been inactive since July
- The plaintiffs had not filed documents for more than five months, and the defendants had not filed responses even though the affidavits of service indicated that responses were due July 27, 2020.
Court’s Action
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a district judge to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute. The court issued an order to show cause: the plaintiffs were required to explain in writing by January 15, 2021, why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. This order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the plaintiffs’ ERISA or labor-law claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.