Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 24, 2022

Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-07941
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins, Judge Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice because Castillo Rosario failed to prosecute it.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended John Carlos Castillo Rosario’s case against Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors, Inc., Wacal Soto, Danilo Cabrera, and Wascar Soto without prejudice. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors, Inc. involved claims under federal and New York wage laws concerning minimum wages, overtime, salary deductions, and required employment notices.

After Plaintiff’s lawyers could not contact him, they withdrew from the case. Plaintiff did not attend a court conference, respond to an order asking whether he wanted to continue or obtain new counsel, or object to the recommended dismissal.

Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court also said appellate review was precluded and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Castillo Rosario v. Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07941
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 24, 2022

Background

John Carlos Castillo Rosario sued Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors, Inc., Wacal Soto, Danilo Cabrera, and Wascar Soto. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning allegedly unpaid minimum wages and overtime, improper salary deductions, and missing legally required employment notices.

Defendants told the court that Plaintiff had apparently delivered a letter saying he did not want to pursue the case. Plaintiff’s lawyers could not contact him to determine whether he wrote the letter. Magistrate Judge Cott later held a telephone conference, granted Plaintiff’s lawyers’ request to withdraw, and Plaintiff did not attend.

Failure to Prosecute

After the conference, Judge Cott ordered Plaintiff to submit a letter by June 27, 2022, stating whether he wanted to continue the case, or to have new counsel appear. The order was mailed to Plaintiff at his home and work addresses. Plaintiff did not submit the letter and did not obtain new counsel.

Judge Cott issued a report and recommendation advising that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The report explained that the parties had fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. The report was mailed to Plaintiff, and no party objected.

Ruling

Because there were no objections, Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. She found no such error, adopted the report and recommendation in full, and ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

The court also held that the lack of objections, after adequate warning, precluded appellate review of the decision. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and record the mailing on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.