Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2022

Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-00929
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Judge Furman dismissed the case with prejudice because Ortega failed to prosecute.

Who this affects

Juan Ortega’s case against Made With Love Wellness, Inc., brought individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, was dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc., Juan Ortega sued the company individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court had ordered him to file any request for a default judgment by April 11, 2022, but he did not do so.

The court then ordered Ortega to explain in writing by April 25 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal without further notice, but Ortega did not submit a response.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close it. Judge Jesse M. Furman concluded that Ortega’s apparent unwillingness to continue warranted dismissal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ortega v. Made With Love Wellness, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00929
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 26, 2022

Background

Juan Ortega brought the case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Made With Love Wellness, Inc. The court ordered Ortega to file any motion for default judgment by April 11, 2022. He did not file one.

The court then issued an order to show cause, requiring Ortega to explain in writing by April 25, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal without further notice. Ortega did not file a written response.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that federal courts may dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. It identified five considerations: the length of the failure to comply, whether the plaintiff was warned about possible dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction was adequately considered.

The court found dismissal warranted in light of Ortega’s apparent unwillingness to proceed after he failed to file the required motion and then failed to respond to the order to show cause.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.