Paguada v. Met-Rx Substrate Technology Delaware, Inc.

Background

Josue Paguada filed the complaint on August 20, 2020, and an amended complaint on September 16, 2020. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally gives a plaintiff 90 days to serve a complaint. The opinion states that Mr. Paguada did not serve the amended complaint within that period.

The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Mr. Paguada to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. His response was due January 15, 2021. As of the date of the opinion, he had not submitted a response.

Court’s Analysis

Under Rule 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute after notifying the plaintiff. The court considered the relevant factors, including the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether he had notice that additional delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, whether lesser sanctions would be effective, and the balance between court administration and the plaintiff’s right to due process.

The court concluded that these factors favored dismissal. In particular, Mr. Paguada had been told that failing to respond to the order to show cause could lead to a recommendation that his case be dismissed, but he did not respond.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave respectfully recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The opinion did not decide the merits of Mr. Paguada’s claims against Met-Rx Substrate Technology Delaware, Inc.