Fresh Bread Delivery, LLC v. Gold Medal Bakery Route Distribution, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-00514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Fresh Bread Delivery v. Gold Medal Bakery: Judge Abrams dismissed the case without prejudice after plaintiffs stopped pursuing arbitration and failed to respond.
The dismissal affected plaintiffs Fresh Bread Delivery, LLC, Sandra Bell, and Oscar Turner, and closed their action against Gold Medal Bakery Route Distribution, LLC. The dismissal was without prejudice.
What happened
Fresh Bread Delivery, LLC, Sandra Bell, and Oscar Turner sued Gold Medal Bakery Route Distribution, LLC. The parties agreed to arbitration, and the court stayed the lawsuit while arbitration proceeded.
Fresh Bread Delivery began an arbitration but did not correct a deficiency identified by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration was closed, and plaintiffs did not resubmit it. Their lawyer also told the court that he could not reach them.
After warning plaintiffs that the case could be dismissed if they did not respond, Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because they failed to prosecute the case and follow the court’s order. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Fresh Bread Delivery, LLC v. Gold Medal Bakery Route Distribution, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-00514
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Fresh Bread Delivery, LLC, Sandra Bell, and Oscar Turner filed the action against Gold Medal Bakery Route Distribution, LLC, on January 17, 2019. On the parties’ consent, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.
Fresh Bread Delivery filed a complaint with the American Arbitration Association on April 16, 2019. The arbitration organization identified an apparent deficiency and asked Fresh Bread to correct it. Fresh Bread did not correct the deficiency, and the arbitration was administratively closed on May 28, 2019, with an option to resubmit the matter. The opinion states that the matter had not been resubmitted.
Failure to Prosecute
The parties’ counsel later submitted a status letter. Plaintiffs’ counsel reported that he had been unable to reach his clients despite repeated attempts. On January 31, 2022, the Court ordered plaintiffs to file a letter stating whether they intended to resubmit the case to arbitration. The Court warned that failure to respond by February 14, 2022, could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with a court order.
Plaintiffs did not respond to the January 31 order and did not otherwise indicate that they intended to pursue the case.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because the Court had received no response from plaintiffs or indication that they intended to continue the case, and because their counsel had been unable to reach them despite repeated attempts. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.