Tatum-Rios v. Mineral Health Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-04845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tatum-Rios v. Mineral Health Inc., Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute.
The dismissal ended Lynette Tatum-Rios’s case against Mineral Health, Inc. without prejudice.
What happened
Tatum-Rios v. Mineral Health Inc. was brought by Lynette Tatum-Rios individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. Mineral Health, Inc. was served, but its answer was not filed by the stated deadline.
The court then ordered the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order said the plaintiff could show progress by requesting a certificate of default and filing a motion for default judgment. The plaintiff did neither and took no other action to move the case forward.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Tatum-Rios v. Mineral Health Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-04845
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 5, 2022
Background
Lynette Tatum-Rios filed the complaint on June 1, 2021, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. Mineral Health, Inc. was served on June 21, 2021. Its answer was due on July 12, 2021.
Failure to Prosecute
On August 3, 2021, the court ordered the plaintiff to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The court explained that the plaintiff could show cause by properly requesting a certificate of default from the Clerk of Court and filing a motion for default judgment by August 17, 2021. The plaintiff did not take those steps or otherwise take action to make progress in the case after the order to show cause.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.