Lal v. Northland Insurance Co.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-06640
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lal v. Northland Insurance Co., Judge Daniels dismissed Lal’s lawsuit for not following court orders and failing to move the case forward.
Sandy K. Lal’s breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims against Northland Insurance Co. and J.T. Shannon Lumber Company, Inc. were dismissed; the opinion states that the defendants had not been served or appeared.
What happened
In Lal v. Northland Insurance Co., Sandy K. Lal, who represented himself, sought damages for allegedly substandard renovations in his apartment. He brought state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Northland Insurance Co. and J.T. Shannon Lumber Company, Inc.; neither defendant had been served or appeared.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing the lawsuit because Lal had not served the defendants, had not followed orders to file declarations, and had missed three scheduled conferences. Lal did not object to that recommendation.
Judge George B. Daniels reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and dismissed Lal’s complaint for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Lal v. Northland Insurance Co. · No. 1:18-cv-06640
- George Daniels
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
Sandy K. Lal, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action in July 2018 seeking damages arising from allegedly substandard renovations in his apartment. The opinion states that Lal asserted state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Northland Insurance Co. and J.T. Shannon Lumber Company, Inc., identified as a flooring provider. The defendants had not been served and had not appeared.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a March 19, 2020 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court explained that when no objections are filed, it reviews the recommendation for clear error—a clear mistake in the magistrate judge’s findings.
The record showed that Magistrate Judge Parker directed Lal to file a declaration stating whether he had served the defendants, but Lal did not do so. The court later issued new summonses and ordered Lal to serve the defendants within 90 days, warning that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation of dismissal. Lal did not serve the defendants. He also did not comply with another order to report whether service had occurred and did not appear at conferences scheduled for July 11, October 29, and December 18, 2019. Lal provided no explanation or excuse for these failures and filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The court dismissed Lal’s complaint for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.