Harding v. The Carlyle Hotel
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-07545
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harding v. The Carlyle Hotel, Judge Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice after Harding failed to respond to court orders.
Gillian Harding's action against The Carlyle Hotel, The Bemelmans Bar, and Rosewood Hotel Group was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
What happened
Gillian Harding brought Harding v. The Carlyle Hotel against The Carlyle Hotel, The Bemelmans Bar, and Rosewood Hotel Group. During a telephone conference, her lawyer said the lawyer could not contact Harding.
The court ordered Harding to say whether she intended to continue the case and warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal. After Harding's lawyer was allowed to withdraw, the court gave Harding another deadline and again warned her that the case could be dismissed. Harding did not respond.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to move the case forward or follow court orders, and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order.
The detailed version
- Harding v. The Carlyle Hotel · No. 1:21-cv-07545
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 17, 2022
Background
Gillian Harding filed the action against The Carlyle Hotel, The Bemelmans Bar, and Rosewood Hotel Group on September 9, 2021. At a May 6, 2022 telephone conference, Harding's counsel told the court that counsel could not contact Harding.
Court Orders and Nonresponse
On May 6, the court ordered Harding to submit a letter by May 17 stating whether she intended to proceed and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. After receiving no update, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw on May 18. The court again ordered Harding to provide an update by June 1, warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal, and directed her former counsel to serve her with the order. Harding did not respond to the May 18 order.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or an order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) because it had received no response from Harding or any indication that she intended to pursue the case. The clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the underlying claims.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.