Eric Rogers v. Quick Stop On First Ave, Inc
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-02802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Eric Rogers v. Quick Stop, Judge Ramos dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute after Rogers ignored a court order for over a year.
Eric Rogers’s claims against Quick Stop on First Avenue Inc. and 1293 First Avenue Realty, LLC were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The court did not decide the merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act or related claims.
What happened
Eric Rogers sued Quick Stop on First Avenue Inc. and 1293 First Avenue Realty, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims. The defendants were served but did not appear or respond.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal. Rogers did not respond to that order or contact the court for more than a year.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed Rogers’s case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Eric Rogers v. Quick Stop On First Ave, Inc · No. 1:19-cv-02802
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
Eric Rogers sued Quick Stop on First Avenue Inc. and 1293 First Avenue Realty, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims. The opinion states that the defendants were served on April 15, 2019, but did not appear or respond to the complaint.
On April 2, 2020, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by April 16, 2020. The court warned that failing to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute. Rogers did not respond to the order or otherwise contact the court for more than a year.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order. The court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff received notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the need to balance court efficiency with the plaintiff’s right to a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction could work.
Court’s analysis
Judge Edgardo Ramos concluded that all five factors favored dismissal. The court found that Rogers had failed to advance the case or contact the court for more than a year, a period the court said was sufficient under Rule 41(b). Rogers had received a warning that the case could be dismissed, but still did not respond.
The court also applied a presumption that the defendants were prejudiced by the unreasonable delay and found no circumstances rebutting that presumption. It stated that Rogers had failed to use his opportunity to be heard and that no lesser sanction would effectively address his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order.
Disposition
The court dismissed Rogers’s case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). It directed the clerk of court to close the case. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violations or related claims had merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.