Barrett v. Rosario
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-07815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barrett v. Rosario, Judge Woods rescheduled a conference and ordered Barrett to attend, warning that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The order directly affected Chandra K. Barrett by requiring her to attend the rescheduled conference and warning that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal; it also concerned the defendants and the court's administration of the case.
What happened
In Barrett v. Rosario, the plaintiff’s lawyers withdrew, and the court gave her time to find new counsel. No new lawyer appeared for her.
The plaintiff also missed a scheduled conference about the next steps in the case. The court rescheduled that conference for June 18, 2021, and ordered her to participate.
Judge Woods warned that continued failure to follow court orders could lead to dismissal under a rule allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey a court order. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Barrett v. Rosario · No. 1:19-cv-07815
- Gregory Woods
- June 8, 2021
Background
The court had previously allowed Mr. LoRusso and Mr. Cassell to withdraw as counsel for Chandra K. Barrett. It stayed the case for 30 days so Barrett could retain new counsel and said that, if no lawyer appeared by May 20, 2021, the court would understand that she was proceeding without a lawyer. No attorney filed a notice of appearance for Barrett.
A status conference about the next steps in the case was scheduled for June 8, 2021. Barrett did not appear by telephone. The court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited 10 minutes before adjourning the conference.
Order
The court rescheduled the status conference for June 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 12C of the Southern District of New York. Barrett was ordered to participate. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail her a copy of the order by certified mail and included courthouse-entry instructions related to pandemic safety protocols.
Warning About Possible Dismissal
The court stated that Barrett had failed to comply with three court orders and warned that, if she continued to do so, it expected to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order. The order explained that a district court may also dismiss a case on its own initiative for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.