Guarquex v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-05533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guarquex v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc., Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to prosecute it.
The plaintiffs’ case against 240 BBJ Pub Inc. d/b/a Jack Doyle's Irish Pub and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
What happened
In Guarquex v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc., the court had ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed because the case had not moved forward.
The plaintiffs’ counsel requested more time, but the plaintiffs did not file the required status update, pre-motion letter, or trial letter, and did not otherwise advance the case. Discovery had already ended, and mediation had not succeeded.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Guarquex v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05533
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
The case had reached the point at which discovery was complete and mediation had been unsuccessful. On September 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman directed the plaintiffs to consult the court’s Individual Practices about the requirements for summary-judgment motions or trial submissions. The opinion states that no progress was made after that direction.
Order to Show Cause
On January 24, 2022, the court ordered the plaintiffs to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The order explained that the plaintiffs could respond by properly filing a pre-motion letter under the court’s Individual Practices or by filing a letter stating that they wished to proceed to trial.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an extension of time on February 7, 2022. The court then directed the plaintiffs to file, by March 7, 2022, a status update, a pre-motion letter, or a letter indicating that they wished to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs did not take any of those steps or otherwise take action to make progress in the case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case, without prejudice, under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent power because of the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling on the basis stated in the order. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.