Gomez v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Cronan dismissed Gomez v. City of New York without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after Gomez failed to comply with orders requiring him to proceed.
Amaury Gomez’s action against The City of New York and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice. Any pending motions were deemed moot, all conferences were canceled, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Gomez v. City of New York, the court allowed Amaury Gomez’s attorney, John Grill, to withdraw. The court then paused discovery and other deadlines and told Gomez to hire a new lawyer or tell the court he would continue without representation.
Gomez did not meet that deadline. The court later ordered him to say whether he intended to continue and to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. Gomez did not respond by the second deadline either.
Judge John P. Cronan dismissed the action without prejudice under a federal rule allowing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or follow a court order. The court also ruled that pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-01114
- John Cronan
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
The court had previously allowed John Grill to withdraw as attorney of record for Amaury Gomez. In that earlier order, the court paused discovery and other deadlines for 30 days and directed Gomez to retain new counsel or submit a letter stating that he wished to proceed without representation by January 21, 2022. The court warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal without further notice. Grill filed proof that he had served Gomez with that order.
Gomez did not retain new counsel or submit the required letter. On January 26, 2022, the court ordered Gomez to inform the court by February 9 whether he intended to continue with the case and, if so, to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court again warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal without further notice. Gomez did not file anything by that deadline.
Rule and ruling
The court relied on Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue an action or comply with a court order. The court explained that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute even when the defendant has not filed a dismissal motion.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because Gomez failed to comply with the December 22, 2021 and January 26, 2022 orders after receiving notice that noncompliance could result in dismissal. The court ruled that any pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.