Paguada v. Nalu Kai Incorporated
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-00734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paguada v. Nalu Kai Incorporated, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to file proof of service.
The plaintiff and defendants were affected because the court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
What happened
In Paguada v. Nalu Kai Incorporated, the plaintiff amended her complaint but did not file the required proof that defendants had been served. The court later instructed her to request a summons and file proof of service by March 1, 2022.
The plaintiff did not file proof of service or tell the court that she had taken steps to serve the amended complaint. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Paul Engelmayer relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority to dismiss the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Nalu Kai Incorporated · No. 1:21-cv-00734
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
Dilenia Paguada filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2021. On October 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker allowed another amendment and directed Paguada to file affidavits showing service of the amended pleading within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Paguada did not file the required affidavits. On February 2, 2022, the court ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Paguada responded on February 15 that she had not received an issued summons. On February 23, the court instructed her to promptly request issuance of a summons and file an affidavit of service by March 1, 2022.
Ruling
The court stated that Paguada still had not filed proof of service and had not indicated that she had taken steps to serve the amended complaint on the defendants. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
Effect of the Order
The dismissal was without prejudice, as stated in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.