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

Background

Josue Paguada filed a putative class action alleging that www.metrx.com was not accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers and therefore violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paguada initially sued Met-Rx Substrate Technology Delaware, Inc., voluntarily dismissed those claims, and then filed an amended complaint naming Met-Rx Substrate Technology as the defendant. A summons was issued, but Paguada did not file proof of service on the docket.

Failure to Prosecute

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Paguada to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) or 41(b). The order set a response deadline of January 15, 2021, and warned that failing to respond could itself lead to dismissal. Paguada did not respond. Judge Cave then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Paguada did not object.

When a party does not object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the record for clear error. The court considered the five factors used for a failure-to-prosecute dismissal: the length of the noncompliance, notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice from further delay, the balance between docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work. The court concluded that the approximately nine-month failure to prosecute, the warning Paguada received, presumed prejudice to the defendant, the protection of Paguada’s opportunity to respond, and the apparent ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions supported dismissal.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe found no error in Judge Cave’s conclusion, adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and dismissed Paguada’s claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case.