Bishop v. Apogee Events, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-00364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Bishop v. Apogee Events, Judge Ramos dismissed Bishop’s case with prejudice after he failed to file a required status report or pursue it.
Cedric Bishop’s claims against Apogee Events, Inc.; the opinion states that Bishop brought the case for himself and other similarly situated persons.
What happened
In Bishop v. Apogee Events, Inc., the court addressed Cedric Bishop’s failure to continue pursuing the case. The court had ordered him to file a status report by November 1, 2020, and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.
Bishop did not file the report, and the case had no further activity for more than a year. The court considered the length of the delay, the warning Bishop received, presumed harm to Apogee Events from the delay, Bishop’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction could work.
Judge Edgardo Ramos concluded that all five factors favored dismissal and dismissed Bishop’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Bishop v. Apogee Events, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00364
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 8, 2021
Background
Cedric Bishop brought this case for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated persons against Apogee Events, Inc. Apogee Events was served with the lawsuit on January 28, 2020. On October 2, 2020, the court ordered Bishop to file a status report by November 1, 2020. The court warned that failing to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Bishop did not file the status report. The opinion states that there was no further activity in the case and that Bishop had not responded to the court or otherwise contacted it 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 fails to comply with a court order. The court considered five factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: the length of the plaintiff’s delay; whether the plaintiff was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal; whether the defendant likely would be harmed by additional delay; whether the court balanced managing its docket with the plaintiff’s right to a fair opportunity to be heard; and whether a lesser sanction could be effective.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Ramos found that each factor supported dismissal. First, Bishop had ignored the October 2, 2020 order and had not contacted the court for more than a year. Second, the court had clearly warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Third, the court applied the rule that unreasonable delay may create a presumption of harm to the defendant and found no circumstances rebutting that presumption. Fourth, the court concluded that Bishop had failed to use his opportunity to pursue the case and be heard. Finally, the court found that no lesser sanction would adequately address his failure to advance the case and comply with the court’s order.
Disposition
The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of Bishop’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.