Gomez v. Roc-Roc Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-03121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gomez v. Roc-Roc Corp., Judge Ramos dismissed Gomez’s Americans with Disabilities Act case with prejudice for failure to prosecute after he did not seek default judgment.
Alexander Gomez’s case was dismissed with prejudice and closed after he failed to seek default judgment or otherwise move the action forward. Roc-Roc Corp., doing business as Burger Time, and The Borgia Family Trust IV remained nonappearing defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Gomez v. Roc-Roc Corp., Alexander Gomez sued Roc-Roc Corp., doing business as Burger Time, and The Borgia Family Trust IV under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims. The defendants were served but did not answer or otherwise appear.
The court directed Gomez several times to move forward. Although the Clerk issued certificates of default, Gomez did not file a motion asking the court to enter default judgment. The court also warned him that failing to follow its orders could lead to dismissal.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court found that Gomez’s lengthy inaction, the warnings he received, presumed prejudice from delay, and the ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions all supported dismissal.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Roc-Roc Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-03121
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Alexander Gomez brought claims against Roc-Roc Corp., doing business as Burger Time, and The Borgia Family Trust IV for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related claims. The opinion states that the defendants were served on April 19 and April 20, 2021, and that their answers were due on May 10 and May 11, 2021. Neither defendant answered or otherwise appeared.
Because no proof of service had initially been filed, the court ordered Gomez to submit a status report and warned that the case could be dismissed under the federal service rule. Gomez later filed proof of service and a status report stating that he intended to begin default proceedings if the defendants did not respond or communicate with his counsel by January 23, 2022. When he did not begin those proceedings by that date, the court ordered another status report and warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Gomez then asked the Clerk of Court to issue certificates of default, which the Clerk issued. The court later directed Gomez to file a motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and the court’s individual rules. Gomez did not file that motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the five-factor test used for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute ends a case because the plaintiff has not taken the steps needed to move it forward.
The court found that all five factors supported dismissal:
- Length of delay: Gomez had taken no meaningful action to prosecute the case for approximately one year, other than requesting certificates of default. The court considered that period long enough to support dismissal.
- Notice: The court had warned Gomez that failing to comply with court orders could result in dismissal.
- Prejudice: Although the record did not specifically show that the defendants had been prejudiced, the court presumed prejudice from the unreasonable delay and found no circumstances rebutting that presumption.
- Fair chance to be heard: The court found that Gomez had not taken advantage of his opportunity to proceed with the case.
- Lesser sanctions: The court found that lesser sanctions would not effectively address Gomez’s failure to prosecute after he ignored the order to seek default judgment.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed Gomez’s action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not decide the merits of Gomez’s disability or related claims. The supplied metadata identifies March 31, 2022 as the filing date, while the opinion states that Gomez brought the action on April 11, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.