Abreu v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-01784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luigi Abreu v. S&T Global Co., Judge Schofield dismissed Abreu’s claims under Rule 41(b) after he failed to prosecute.
Luigi Abreu’s claims were dismissed, and the case was closed. The opinion states that S&T Global Co. had not appeared.
What happened
In Luigi Abreu v. S&T Global Co., the court said Abreu filed an amended complaint and obtained a certificate of default after S&T Global Co. did not appear.
The court ordered Abreu three times to file materials supporting a request for a judgment based on the defendant’s default. Abreu did not file the materials by any of the three deadlines and had been unresponsive since May 25, 2022.
The court had warned that failing to comply with the final order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Schofield dismissed Abreu’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-01784
- Lorna Schofield
- July 7, 2022
Background
Luigi Abreu filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2022. S&T Global Co. had not appeared. On May 25, 2022, Abreu filed a proposed certificate of default, which the Clerk issued that day.
Court Orders and Noncompliance
On May 26, 2022, the court directed Abreu to file materials supporting a default judgment by June 9, 2022. No materials were filed. The court issued another order on June 14, setting a June 22 deadline, but Abreu again did not file the materials. On June 28, the court set a third deadline of July 1 and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. No materials were filed by that deadline.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. The court considered the factors identified in the opinion, including the duration of the failure, notice of the possible dismissal, possible prejudice from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket, the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
The court found that Abreu had failed to comply with three court orders, had been unresponsive since May 25, 2022, and had notice that failure to comply with the June 28 order would result in dismissal. The court dismissed Abreu’s claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.