Quezada v. Kidrobot, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-02152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Quezada v. Kidrobot, LLC, Judge Ramos dismissed the ADA case with prejudice after Quezada failed to prosecute it.
Jose Quezada’s action against Kidrobot, LLC was dismissed with prejudice because Quezada did not comply with court orders or otherwise move the case forward. The court did not reach the merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act or related claims.
What happened
Jose Quezada brought Quezada v. Kidrobot, LLC, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Kidrobot was served but did not appear or respond.
Quezada obtained a certificate of default but did not properly move for default. After the court ordered him to move for default or submit a status report, and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, he did neither. The court found that he had taken no action for about eight months and that all factors supported dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed Quezada’s case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court did not decide the merits of the disability claims.
The detailed version
- Quezada v. Kidrobot, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02152
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Jose Quezada filed an action against Kidrobot, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims. He brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Quezada filed a first amended complaint, which Kidrobot received on May 12, 2021. Kidrobot did not appear or respond.
Quezada requested a Clerk’s certificate of default, but his first request was rejected because of a filing error. After the court ordered him to provide a status report, he filed another request, and the Clerk issued a certificate of default. Quezada did not then file the motion for default judgment required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).
Failure to Prosecute
On December 10, 2021, the court ordered Quezada either to move for default in accordance with the court’s individual rules or to submit a status report by December 23, 2021. The court specifically warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Quezada did neither. The court stated that he had taken no action to prosecute the case since August 2021, approximately eight months earlier.
The court applied five factors used to evaluate dismissal for failure to prosecute: the length of the delay; whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal; possible prejudice to the defendant; the balance between managing the court’s docket and protecting the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard; and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
The court found that all five factors supported dismissal. It found the eight-month delay sufficient, noted that Quezada had received a clear warning, and stated that prejudice to the defendant could be presumed from the unreasonable delay. The court also found that Quezada had not used his opportunity to be heard and that lesser sanctions would not remedy his failure to follow court orders.
Disposition
The court dismissed Quezada’s case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion did not decide whether Quezada’s Americans with Disabilities Act or related claims had merit.
Outcome
The case was dismissed based on Quezada’s failure to advance the litigation, not after a decision on the underlying disability claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.