Gordon v. Target Corporation
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-09589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Gordon v. Target Corporation: Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice after Gordon did not file an amended complaint.
Lovelyn Gordon’s action against Target Corporation was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; the opinion also states that her claim for injunctive relief had previously been dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Gordon v. Target Corporation, Lovelyn Gordon sued Target Corporation individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court had previously granted Target’s motion to dismiss and allowed Gordon 30 days to amend most claims.
Gordon did not file an amended complaint and told the court by telephone that she did not intend to do so. The court considered the length of the delay, the warning about dismissal, possible prejudice, case management, and less severe alternatives.
Judge Karas dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court noted that Gordon’s claim for injunctive relief had already been dismissed with prejudice in the earlier ruling.
The detailed version
- Gordon v. Target Corporation · No. 7:20-cv-09589
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 20, 2022
Background
Lovelyn Gordon brought this action against Target Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 18, 2022, the court granted Target’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Gordon’s claims without prejudice, except for her claim for injunctive relief, which it dismissed with prejudice. The court gave Gordon 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in its earlier opinion and order. It warned that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Gordon did not file an amended complaint. The docket did not show such a filing, and Gordon told the court by telephone that she did not intend to file one.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court also stated that a district court has the inherent authority to order this type of dismissal on its own, without a motion from the defendant.
The court considered the factors used for a failure-to-prosecute dismissal: the length of the failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned about dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair chance to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be adequate. It concluded that these factors supported dismissal because Gordon had been given more than a month to amend, had been warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal with prejudice, had not filed an amended complaint, and had stated that she did not plan to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. This order did not change the earlier ruling that dismissed Gordon’s claim for injunctive relief with prejudice.
Result
The case was dismissed without prejudice because Gordon did not file the amended complaint required by the court’s earlier order. The opinion does not state whether Gordon was represented by counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.